1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 39871/39872

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

NATHAN ALLEN SCOTT,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 466

Filed: April 26, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Kootenai County. Hon. Lansing L. Haynes, District Judge. 

Orders relinquishing jurisdiction and executing original sentences without 

reduction, affirmed; orders denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motions for reduction 

of sentences, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Nathan Allen Scott pled guilty to rape, Idaho Code 

§ 18-6101, in docket number 39871, and conspiracy to commit grand theft, I.C. § 18-2403(1), in 

docket number 39872. The district court sentenced Scott to a unified term of ten years, with two 

years determinate, for the rape conviction, and a unified term of six years, with two years 

determinate, for the conspiracy conviction. The district court ordered the sentences to run 

concurrent with each other and retained jurisdiction in both cases. After a period of retained 

jurisdiction, the district court suspended the sentences and placed Scott on probation. 

Subsequently, Scott admitted to violating several terms of his probation. The district court 
2

revoked probation and executed the original sentences, but retained jurisdiction again in both 

cases. Shortly thereafter, the Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC) recommended that the 

district court relinquish jurisdiction. After a hearing, the district court continued its jurisdiction 

and ordered Scott to continue his programming. Not long thereafter, the IDOC again 

recommended that the district court relinquish its jurisdiction. The district court relinquished 

jurisdiction and executed the original sentences in both cases. Scott filed Idaho Criminal Rule 35 

motions for reduction of his sentences, which the district court denied. 

Scott appealed in both cases. On appeal, Scott contends the district court abused its 

discretion by relinquishing jurisdiction, or alternatively, by failing to sua sponte reduce his 

sentences upon relinquishing jurisdiction. Scott also argues the district court abused its

discretion by denying his Rule 35 motions. The two cases have been consolidated on appeal.

The decision to place a defendant on probation or whether, instead, to relinquish 

jurisdiction over the defendant is a matter within the sound discretion of the district court and 

will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Hood, 102 Idaho 

711, 712, 639 P.2d 9, 10 (1981); State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 205-06, 786 P.2d 594, 596-97 (Ct. 

App. 1990). The record in this case shows the district court properly considered the information 

before it and determined that probation was not appropriate. 

Upon relinquishing jurisdiction, the trial court is authorized under Rule 35 to reduce the 

sentence. Sentencing is also a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review 

and the factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of a sentence are well 

established and need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 

P.2d 1011, 1014-15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 

871-73 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). 

When reviewing the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. 

Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having 

reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion. 

A motion for reduction of sentence under Rule 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, 

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In 

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of 

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the 
3

motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the 

record, including the new information submitted with Scott’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no 

abuse of discretion has been shown. 

Accordingly, the orders relinquishing jurisdiction and requiring execution of Scott’s

original sentences without reduction are affirmed. Additionally, the district court’s orders 

denying Scott’s Rule 35 motions are also affirmed.