1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45128

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

TREVOR JAMES RUSH ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2018 Unpublished Opinion No. 367

Filed: February 23, 2018

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Deborah A. Bail , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for felony injury to a child, affirmed ; order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed

. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

________________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Trevor James Rush pled guilty to felony injury to a child , Idaho Code § 18

- 1501(1) . The
district court imposed a unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of

two years

. Rush filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. The

district court retai ned jurisdiction, and Rush was sent to participate in the rider program.

After Rush completed his rider, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. Rush appeals, claiming that the district court erred by refusing to grant probation. He also argu es his sentence

is excessive and constitutes an abuse of discretion.2 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

cour t 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 Rush has

failed to show t hat the district court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction.

Rush also contends that his sentence is excessive and constitutes an abuse of discretion.
Sentences are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Our appellate standard of review an d the factors to be considered when evaluating the reasonableness of a sentence are well

- established.

State v. Burdett , 134 Idaho 271, 1 P.3d 299 (Ct. App. 2000); State v. Sanchez , 115 Idaho 776,
769 P.2d 1148 (Ct. App. 1989); State v. Reinke , 103 Idaho 7 71, 653 P.2d 1183 (Ct. App. 1982);

State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (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).

Rush argues that all of the relevant goals of sentencing could have been accomplished
with probation. As noted above, however, the district court found that probation was not an
appropriate course of action in Rush ’s case. The record does not indicate tha t the district court
abused its discretion in sentencing. The order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction and Rush ’s sentence are affirmed.