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 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 397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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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 unifie d 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 senten ce, 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 p robation 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. Toohi ll , 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 jurisdic tion. 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 I daho 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 revi ewed 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 jurisdict ion and directing execution of
Hale’s previously suspended sentence is affirmed.