1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37970

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ADAM RICHARD COCHRAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2011 Unpublished Opinion No. 405

Filed: March 24, 2011

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

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

Kootenai County. Hon. Benjamin Ray Simpson, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of three years for rape, and order relinquishing jurisdiction, 

affirmed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Spencer J. Hahn, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, 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 MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Adam Richard Cochran pled guilty to rape. I.C. § 18-6001. The district court sentenced 

Cochran to a unified term of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years

but retained jurisdiction. Thereafter, the district court relinquished jurisdiction and reduced the 

determinate portion of Cochran’s sentence to three years. Cochran appeals, challenging the 

court’s relinquishment of jurisdiction and failure to further reduce his sentence.

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. 

See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-15 (Ct. App. 1991); State 
2

v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill, 103 

Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). 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.

In this case we are asked to determine whether the district court abused its discretion in 

refusing to grant probation following a period of retained jurisdiction. 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 Cochran has failed to show that the 

district court abused its discretion, and we therefore affirm the order relinquishing jurisdiction.

Therefore, Cochran’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s orders 

relinquishing jurisdiction and modifying the sentence to fifteen years with three years 

determinate without further modification are affirmed.