1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 46411

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

GARO SHAHE ASIAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: August 9, 2019

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Thomas F. Neville, District Judge. 

Order relinquishing jurisdiction and executing sentence, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, 

Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

HUSKEY, Judge

Garo Shahe Asian appeals from the district court’s order to relinquish jurisdiction and 

execute the reduced sentence. Asian asserts the district court abused its discretion when it 

relinquished jurisdiction because the court did not appropriately defer to the Idaho Department of 

Correction’s (Department) programming discretion as set forth in Idaho Code § 19-2601(4). The 

State contends the district court did not make its decision to relinquish jurisdiction based on the 

Department’s choice of programming. We affirm the district court’s judgment and order 

relinquishing jurisdiction.

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. 
2

App. 1990). When a trial court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate 

court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the lower court: (1) correctly 

perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the boundaries of such discretion; (3) 

acted consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it; and (4) 

reached its decision by an exercise of reason. State v. Herrera, 164 Idaho 261, 270, 429 P.3d 

149, 158 (2018).

A jury found Asian guilty of possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug 

paraphernalia. The district court later found Asian guilty of being a persistent violator. At the 

sentencing hearing, the district court imposed a unified sentence of ten years, with three and onehalf years determinate, for possession of a controlled substance and 180 days for the possession 

of drug paraphernalia, with the sentences to run concurrently.

The district court retained jurisdiction for 365 days and made clear three things. First, 

that the district court was retaining jurisdiction for evaluative purposes only and that this was not 

a situation where successfully completing the rider would result in probation. Second, that even 

if Asian successfully completed the rider, he would only get a review hearing, but there was no 

guarantee of being placed on probation. Third, the district court did not recommend a specific 

program because it recognized the programming may have changed and it did not want to limit 

Asian’s ability to participate in a program of which the district court was not aware. Thus, 

although the district court was recommending programming, it was deferring to the Department 

to identify and place Asian in the most relevant treatment program. 

Asian completed the rider program and the Department recommended Asian for 

probation. At Asian’s rider review hearing, the district court recognized it had discretion to 

either place Asian on probation or relinquish jurisdiction. The district court repeatedly expressed 

apprehension about Asian’s ability to successfully complete probation based on the 

programming he received. The district court was concerned that the programming Asian 

received was insufficient to provide Asian with the necessary skills to be successful on 

probation. The district court appropriately considered relevant factors, including Asian’s 

criminal history, substance abuse, associations with individuals with previous felonies, failure to 

complete jail courses that the court recommended, and the perceived limits of the rider 

programming, The district court concluded that despite completing the rider, Asian still had

below-average rehabilitation potential and represented a risk to society. The district court 
3

relinquished jurisdiction but sua sponte reduced Asian’s sentence pursuant to Idaho Criminal 

Rule 35. 

The district court did not relinquish jurisdiction based solely on the program in which the 

Department placed Asian. Instead, the district court considered the relevant factors, articulated 

its reasons for relinquishing jurisdiction, and reached its decision through an exercise of reason. 

Accordingly, the district court did not err in relinquishing jurisdiction in this case. We affirm the 

order relinquishing jurisdiction and executing a reduced sentence. 

Chief Judge GRATTON and Judge LORELLO CONCUR.