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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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; L ori 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 di strict 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 relinquishi ng 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 d iscretion of the district court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Hood , 1022

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 th is 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 reviewe d for an abuse of discretion. Our appellate standard of review and the factors to be considered when evaluating the reasonableness of a s entence 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).
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.