1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43985

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MIGUEL ANGEL HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 738

Filed: October 20, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bingham County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson, District Judge. 

Order relinquishing jurisdiction and order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 

motion, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. 

Reynolds, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Miguel Angel Hernandez pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance, 

methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1). The district court imposed a unified seven-year 

sentence, with three years determinate, suspended the sentence, and placed Hernandez on a 

period of probation. Subsequently, Hernandez admitted to violating the terms of the probation, 

and the district court consequently revoked probation, executed the underlying sentence, and 

retained jurisdiction. Hernandez was sent to participate in the retained jurisdiction program. 

After Hernandez completed his period of retained jurisdiction, the district court relinquished 

jurisdiction. Hernandez filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. 
2

Hernandez appeals, claiming the district court erred by refusing to grant probation and by 

denying his I.C.R. 35 motion. 

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 

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

jurisdiction. 

Hernandez 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 Hernandez’s case. The record does not indicate that 

the district court abused its discretion in sentencing. 

Next, 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 an I.C.R. 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). Upon review of the 

record, including any new information submitted with Hernandez’s I.C.R. 35 motion, we 

conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying 

Hernandez’s I.C.R. 35 motion is affirmed. 

The order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction and the order denying

Hernandez’s I.C.R. 35 motion are affirmed.