1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41871

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

WILLIAM JERMAINE FLETCHER,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 797

Filed: November 3, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 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. Ronald J. Wilper, District Judge. 

Order relinquishing jurisdiction, and order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction 

of sentence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Erik R. Lehtinen, Chief, 

Appellate Unit, Boise, for appellant. 

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

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

William Jermaine Fletcher entered an Alford1 plea to one count of injury to a child, Idaho 

Code § 18-1501(1). The district court sentenced Fletcher to a unified term of ten years with 

three years determinate, and retained jurisdiction. Fletcher filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 

motion timely from the judgment of conviction and order of retained jurisdiction. Less than two 

months into the retained jurisdiction program, the Idaho Department of Correction recommended 

relinquishing jurisdiction. The district court relinquished jurisdiction and ordered execution of 

Fletcher’s sentence without reduction. Fletcher filed three addenda to his Rule 35 motion and 

 

1 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). 
2

filed a motion to amend a no-contact order. The district court denied Fletcher’s Rule 35 motion 

as well as the motion to amend a no-contact order. Fletcher appeals the court’s decision to 

relinquish jurisdiction and the denial of his Rule 35 motion.

The decision as to whether to place a defendant on probation or, instead, to relinquish 

jurisdiction is committed to the discretion of the sentencing court. State v. Hernandez, 122 Idaho 

227, 230, 832 P.2d 1162, 1165 (Ct. App. 1992); State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 786 P.2d 594 (Ct. 

App. 1990); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 567, 650 P.2d 707, 709 (Ct. App. 1982). Therefore, 

a decision to relinquish jurisdiction will not be disturbed on appeal except for an abuse of 

discretion. State v. Chapman, 120 Idaho 466, 816 P.2d 1023 (Ct. App. 1991). 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 the district court did not abuse its discretion, 

and we therefore affirm the order relinquishing jurisdiction.

Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Fletcher’s Rule 35 motion. A 

motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, addressed to 

the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 23, 24 (2006); 

State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In presenting a Rule 35 

motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of new or additional 

information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the motion. State v. 

Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). In conducting our review of the grant 

or denial of a Rule 35 motion, we consider the entire record and apply the same criteria used for 

determining the reasonableness of the original sentence. State v. Forde, 113 Idaho 21, 22, 740 

P.2d 63, 64 (Ct. App. 1987); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. 

App. 1984). Upon review of the record, including any new information submitted with 

Fletcher’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the 

district court’s decision to relinquish jurisdiction and the order denying Fletcher’s Rule 35 

motion are affirmed.