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2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 593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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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 the 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 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 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 appellate standard of review 

and the factors to be considered when evaluating the reasonableness of a sentence are wellestablished. 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 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.