1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No s . 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 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 466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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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 ; o rder s denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion s for reduction of sentence s , 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, fo r 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 con spiracy to commit grand theft, I.C. § 18

- 2403(1) , in
docket number 39 8 72. The district court sentenced Scott to a uni fied term of ten years, with two years determinate, for the rap e conviction, and a unified term of six years, with two years determinate, for the conspiracy conviction. The district court ordered th e 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 pro bation. Subsequently, Scott admitted to violating several terms of his probation. The district court2 revoked probation and executed the original sentences, but retained jurisdiction again in both cases. Shortly thereafter, the Idaho Department of Correc tion (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 di strict 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 d istrict 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. Stat e 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 reducti on 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, t he defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the3 motion. State v. Huffman , 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the

recor d, including the new information submitted with Scott ’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no
abuse of discretion has been shown. Accordingly, the order s relinquishing jurisdiction and requiring execution of Scott’s original sentence s without reduction are affi rmed

. Additionally, the district court’s orders denying Scott ’s Rule 35 motion s are also affirmed.