1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39448

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MARION OWEN JENT,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 633

Filed: September 12, 2012

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 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. Fred M. Gibler, District Judge. 

Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed. 

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, 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; LANSING, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

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 are also asked to 

review a ten-year sentence, with a minimum period of confinement of seven years, for burglary. 

We affirm.

Marion Owen Jent pled guilty to one count of delivery of a controlled substance. I.C. § 

18-1401. In exchange for his guilty plea, an allegation that Jent was a persistent violator was 

dismissed. Following his plea, Jent was sentenced to a determinate term of ten years. The 

district court retained jurisdiction, and Jent was sent to participate in the rider program at the 

North Idaho Correctional Institution (NICI).
2

Prior to the completion of Jent’s evaluation at NICI, the jurisdictional review committee 

recommended relinquishment of jurisdiction. The district court relinquished jurisdiction, but sua 

sponte reduced Jent’s sentence to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of 

confinement of seven years. Jent filed an I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of his sentence, which 

the district court denied. Jent appeals, claiming that the district court erred in relinquishing 

jurisdiction. Jent also argues that his modified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of 

confinement of seven years, is excessive and constitutes an abuse of discretion and that the 

district court should have further sua sponte reduced his sentence.

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 Jent has 

failed to show that the district court abused its discretion, and we therefore affirm the order 

relinquishing jurisdiction.

Jent also contends that his modified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of 

confinement of seven years, 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 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 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). The record does not indicate that a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period 

of confinement of seven years, was an abuse of discretion in this case. Accordingly, the sentence 

is affirmed.

The order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction and Jent’s sentence are affirmed.