1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45670

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

DAVID KIRT HOSKINS ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Filed: September 25, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Robert C. Naftz , District Judge.

Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed ; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Lara E. Anderson , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and LORELLO, Jud ge

________________________________________________
PER CURIAM

David Kirt Hoskins pled guilty to injury to jail or other place of confinement . I.C. § 18

- 7018

. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed including an allegation that he was a persistent violator. After Hoskins failed to appear for sentencing, the district court issued a warrant for Hoskins’ arrest. Hoskins was eventually arrested and t he district court imposed a unified term of three years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year

. The district court suspended the sentence and placed Hoskins on probation. However, after sentence was imposed, Hoskins failed to check in with his probation offic er. Hoskins was arrested as a2 result. Once released on the condition that he immediately report to his probation officer,

Hos kins provided a false address and subsequently absconded supervision for several months.
Thereafter, t he district court revoked probation, but retained jurisdiction and Hoskins was sent to participate in the rider program.

After Hoskins completed his rider, the district court relinquished jurisdiction without first conducting a hearing

. Hoskins fi led an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied.

Hoskins appeals, claiming that the district court erred by “summarily” relinquishing jurisdiction “absent a hearing” and “without full consideration” of his “condition and character,” including

hi s mental health, the “lack of seriousness” of his offense, and the “reasons behind” his crime.

Hoskins also asserts the district court erred in denying his Rule 35 motion.

T he 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. Moreover, the district court was not required to conduct a hearing before relinquishing jurisdiction. See State v.

Coassolo , 136 Idaho 138, 143, 30 P.3d 293, 298 (2001); State v. Goodlett , 139 Idaho 262, 264, 77 P.3d 487, 489 (Ct. App. 2003). Hoskins has failed to show that the district court abused its

dis cretion in relinquishing jurisdiction.

Hoskins also contends that the district court erred in denying his Rul e 35 motion for reduction of his sentence. A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, addressed to t he 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). Upon review of the record, including any new information submitted with Hoskin s ’s Rule 35 motion, we

conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.3 The order s of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction and denying Hoskins ’s Rule 35

motion for reduction of his sentence are affirmed.