1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45773

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

ANDREW JAMES ESHUN ,
Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Filed: September 10, 2018
Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Nancy Baskin , District Judge.
Order relinquishing jurisdiction and executing a unified sentence of ten years, with two and one

- half years determinate, affirmed

. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford
, Deputy Appellate Public Def ender, 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 HUSKEY, J udge

________________________________________________ PER CURIAM
Andrew James Eshun pleaded guilty to felony domestic batter y in the presence of a child,
Idaho Code § § 18

- 918(2),

- 903(a),

- 918(4) . The district court imposed a unified ten

- year sentence, with three years determinate . The district court retained jurisdiction, and Eshun was sent to participate in the rider program. After Eshun completed his rider, the district court relinquishe d jurisdiction , but sua sponte reduced Eshun’s sentence to a ten

- year sentence, with
two and one

- half years determinate

. Eshun appeals, claiming that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence, relinquishing jurisdiction, and failing to further
reduce his sentence.2 We note that 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 overtu rned 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 conside red the information before it and determined that probation was not appropriate. We hold that Eshun has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction.
Eshun also contends that his sentence is excessive and constitutes an abuse of discretion.
Sentences are reviewe d 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 2 71, 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

se ntence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). When we review a sentence that is ordered into execution following a period of probation, we will examine the entire record encompassing events before and after the original judgment. State v. Hanington , 148 Idaho 26, 29, 218 P.3d 5, 8 (Ct. App. 2009). W e base our review upon the facts existing when the sentence was imposed as well as events occurring between the original sentencing and the revocation of probation. Id. Thus, this Court will
consider the elements of the record before the trial court that are properly made part of the record on appeal and are relevant to the defendant’s contention that the trial court should have reduced the sentence sua sponte upon revocation of probation. State v. Morgan , 153 Idaho 618, 621, 288 P.3d 835, 838 (Ct. App. 2012). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.
Our decision in State v. Clontz , 156 Idaho 787, 792, 331 P.3d 529, 534 (Ct. App. 2014)
forecloses a claim that a d istrict court erred by failing to sua sponte reduce an underlying sentence upon relinquishment of probation. Therefore, we will not further address Eshun’s claim that the district court erred by failing to further sua sponte reduce Eshun ’s sentence upon relinquishment of probation.3 The order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction and Eshun ’s reduced sentence of ten years, with two and one

- half years, are affirmed.