1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39459

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

PATRISHIA HELEN GLADYS VON TERSCH , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 695

Filed: October 3 1 , 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seco nd Judicial District, State of Idaho, Nez Perce County. Hon. Carl B. Kerrick , District Judge.

Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

In this case we are asked to determine whether the district court abused its discretion in refusing to grant probation following a period of retained jurisdiction. We are also asked to

review con current unified sentence s of five years, with a minimum period of confinment of two

years, for two counts of conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance . We affirm. Patrisha Helen Gladys Von Tersch pled guilty to two count of delive ry of a controlled

substance. I.C. § § 37

- 2732(a)(1)(b) and 37

- 2732(f)

. In exchange for her guilty pleas, additional charges were dismissed. Following her plea s , Von Tersch was sentenced to concurrent unified

terms of five years, with minimum p eriod s of confin e ment of two years

. The district court withheld judgment and placed Von Tersch on probation. Von Tersch admitted to violating the2 terms of her probation. The district court revoked the withheld judg ment and Von Tersch’s probation, ordered execution of her original sentences, but retained jurisdiction. Following completion of her rider, the district court placed Von Tersch on probation. Again Von Tersch admitted to violating the terms of her probati on. The district court revoked Von Tersch’s probation and again retained jurisdiction. The district court ultimately relinquished jurisdiction.

Von Tersch appeals, claiming that the district court erred by refusing to grant probation

. Sh e also argues that her sentence s of five years, with a minimum period of confinment of two

years, is excessive and constitutes an abuse of discretion. We note that the decision to pla ce 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 that the district court properly considered the information before it and determined that probation was not appropriat e. We hold that Von Tersch has failed
to show that the district court abused its discretion, and we therefore affirm the order relinquishing jurisdiction.

Von Tersch also contends that the unified sentence s five years, with a minimum period of

c onfinment of two years, are excessive and constitute an abuse of discretion. Sentences are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Our appellate standard of review and the factors to be considered when evaluating the reasonableness of a sentence are well

- established. State v.

Burdett , 134 Idaho 271, 1 P.3d 299 (Ct. App. 2000); State v. Sanchez , 115 Idaho 776, 769 P.2d 1148 (Ct. App. 1989); State v. Reinke , 103 Idaho 771, 653 P.2d 1183 (Ct. App. 1982); State v.

Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (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).

Von Tersch argues that all of the relevant goals of sentencing could have been accomplished with probation. As noted above, however, the district court found that probation was not an appropriate course of action in Von Tersch ’ s case. The record does not indicate that

con current unified terms of five years, with minimum periods of confinement of two years, are3 excessive or that the district court abuse s its discretion in this case. Accordingly, the sentence is

affirmed. The order of the district court relinquishing jurisd iction and Von Tersch ’ s sentence s are
affirmed.