1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44905

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

BRADLY YOUNG ANDERSON ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 593

Filed: September 25, 2017

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Michael Reardon , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for domestic violence, affirmed ; order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed

. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds

, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Bradly Young Anderson pled guilty to domestic violence (third offense within fifteen years), Idaho Code §§ 18

- 903(a), 18

- 918(3)(b), 18

- 918(3)(c) . In exchange for his guilty plea,
additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a unified sentence of five years,
with a minimum period of confinement of two years . The district court retained jurisdiction, and

Anderson was sent to participate in the rider program.2 After Anderson completed his rider, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. Anderson appeals, claiming that t he district court erred by refusing to grant probation. He also argues his

sentence is excessive and constitutes an abuse of discretion.
We note that the decision to place a defendant on probation or whether, instead, to
relinquish jurisdiction over the d efendant 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, 59 6

- 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 Anderson has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction.

Anderson also contends that his sentence is excessive and constitutes an abuse of
discretion. Sentences are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Our appell ate standard of review
and 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); Sta te v. Reinke , 103 Idaho 771, 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).

Anderson 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 Anderson ’s case. The record does not indicate that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing.
The order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction and Anderson ’s sentence are

affirmed.