1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 38639

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

WILLIAM JOSEPH HALE, II,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 397

Filed: March 8, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 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. Darla S. Williamson, District Judge. 

Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed.

Stephen D. Thompson, Ketchum, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

William Joseph Hale, II, was convicted of felony violation of a no contact order, Idaho 

Code § 18-920. The district court imposed a unified five-year sentence with a one-year 

determinate term, suspended the sentence and placed Hale on supervised probation. 

Subsequently, Hale admitted to violating several terms of the probation, and the district court 

consequently revoked probation, ordered execution of the original sentence, and retained 

jurisdiction. At the conclusion of the retained jurisdiction program, the court relinquished 

jurisdiction and ordered execution of Hale’s sentence. Hale filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 

motion for reduction of sentence which the district court denied. Hale appeals the court’s 

decision to relinquish jurisdiction and contends that the court abused its discretion in failing to 

sua sponte reduce his sentence upon relinquishing jurisdiction.
2

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

jurisdiction is committed to the discretion of the sentencing court. State v. Hernandez, 122 Idaho 

227, 230, 832 P.2d 1162, 1165 (Ct. App. 1992); State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 786 P.2d 594 (Ct. 

App. 1990); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 567, 650 P.2d 707, 709 (Ct. App. 1982). Therefore, 

a decision to relinquish jurisdiction will not be disturbed on appeal except for an abuse of 

discretion. State v. Chapman, 120 Idaho 466, 816 P.2d 1023 (Ct. App. 1991). The record in this 

case shows that the district court properly considered the information before it and determined 

that probation was not appropriate. We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion, 

and we therefore affirm the order relinquishing jurisdiction.

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

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the 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); Toohill, 103 Idaho at 568, 650 P.2d at 710. 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.

Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot 

say that the district court abused its discretion in ordering execution of Hale’s original sentence, 

without modification. Therefore, the order relinquishing jurisdiction and directing execution of 

Hale’s previously suspended sentence is affirmed.