1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45749

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

GREGORY CONAN WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: April 19, 2019

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Melissa Moody, District Judge. 

Order relinquishing jurisdiction and sentence, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;

and BRAILSFORD, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Gregory Conan Williams was found guilty of felony stalking in the first degree, Idaho 

Code § 18-7905. The district court imposed a unified five-year sentence, with three years 

determinate. The district court retained jurisdiction, and Williams was sent to participate in the 

rider program. After Williams completed his rider, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. 

Williams appeals, claiming that the district court erred by relinquishing jurisdiction. 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 
2

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 Williams

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

Williams 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). 

Williams 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 Williams’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 Williams’s sentence are affirmed.