1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42842

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MATTHEW J. MONTGOMERY,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 509

Filed: April 28, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bannock County. Hon. Stephen S. Dunn, District Judge. 

Orders of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction, denying I.C.R. 35 motion, 

and denying motion for reconsideration, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Matthew J. Montgomery pled guilty to criminal possession of a financial transaction card. 

Idaho Code § 18-3125. The district court withheld judgment and placed Montgomery on 

supervised probation for five years. Montgomery violated his probation and the district court 

revoked the withheld judgment and imposed a unified sentence of five years with two years 

determinate, suspended the sentence, and again placed Montgomery on supervised probation for 

five years. Montgomery violated his probation a second and third time, and the district court 

subsequently revoked his probation, ordered the underlying sentence executed, and retained 

jurisdiction. Following the period of retained jurisdiction, the district court relinquished 
2

jurisdiction. Montgomery filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court 

denied. Montgomery then filed a motion for reconsideration which the district court also denied. 

Montgomery appeals, asserting that the district court abused its discretion by relinquishing 

jurisdiction, by denying his Rule 35 motion, and by denying his motion for reconsideration.

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 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 appropriate. We hold that 

Montgomery has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in relinquishing 

jurisdiction.

Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Montgomery’s Rule 35 

motion. A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, 

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In 

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of 

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the 

motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). In conducting our 

review of the grant or denial of a Rule 35 motion, we consider the entire record and apply the 

same criteria used for determining the reasonableness of the original sentence. State v. Forde, 

113 Idaho 21, 22, 740 P.2d 63, 64 (Ct. App. 1987); Lopez, 106 Idaho at 449-51, 680 P.2d at 871-

73. Upon review of the record, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.

The orders of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction, denying Montgomery’s Rule 35 

motion, and denying Montgomery’s motion for reconsideration are affirmed.