1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39186

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CARLA V. RAMIREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 613

Filed: August 29, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

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

Bannock County. Hon. Robert C. Naftz, District Judge. 

Appeal from order relinquishing jurisdiction and executing original, unified 

sentence of seven years, with three years determinate, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Carla V. Ramirez pled guilty to burglary, Idaho Code §§ 18-1401, 18-1403. The district 

court sentenced Ramirez to a unified term of seven years, with three years determinate, but 

retained jurisdiction for 180 days. After the expiration of the period of retained jurisdiction, the 

district court entered an order relinquishing jurisdiction, acknowledging the expiration of the 

court’s jurisdiction. Ramirez appeals, contending the district court abused its discretion by 

failing to reduce her sentence upon relinquishing jurisdiction. 

Idaho Code § 19-2601(4) states in part that whenever any person pleads guilty to a crime 

(except treason or murder), the district court, in its discretion, may:
2

Suspend the execution of the judgment at any time during the first three 

hundred sixty-five (365) days of a sentence to the custody of the state board of 

correction. The court shall retain jurisdiction over the prisoner for a period of up 

to the first three hundred sixty-five (365) days or, if the prisoner is a juvenile, 

until the juvenile reaches twenty-one (21) years of age. During the period of 

retained jurisdiction, the state board of correction shall be responsible for 

determining the placement of the prisoner and such education, programming and 

treatment as it determines to be appropriate. The prisoner will remain committed 

to the board of correction if not affirmatively placed on probation by the court.

(Emphasis added.) During the period of retained jurisdiction, the district court shares 

jurisdiction with the Board of Correction (Board). State v. Petersen, 149 Idaho 808, 812, 241 

P.3d 981, 985 (Ct. App. 2010); State v. Williams, 126 Idaho 39, 44, 878 P.2d 213, 218 (Ct. App. 

1994). It has long been held that the court’s jurisdiction expires at the end of the period of 

retained jurisdiction. State v. Diggie, 140 Idaho 238, 240, 91 P.3d 1142, 1144 (Ct. App. 2004). 

If the district court does not affirmatively grant probation prior the expiration of the period of 

retained jurisdiction, the defendant remains committed to the Board. I.C. § 19-2601(4); 

Petersen, 149 Idaho at 812, 241 P.3d at 985.

The court may extend the retained jurisdiction time period by thirty days in certain 

circumstances:

In extraordinary circumstances, where the court concludes that it is unable to 

obtain and evaluate the relevant information within the period of retained 

jurisdiction, or where the court concludes that a hearing is required and is unable 

to obtain the defendant’s presence for such a hearing within such period, the court 

may decide whether to place the defendant on probation or release jurisdiction 

within a reasonable time, not to exceed thirty (30) days, after the period of 

retained jurisdiction has expired.

I.C. § 19-2601(4). Any action by the court to extend the time period must be made prior to the 

expiration of the period of retained jurisdiction. Petersen, 149 Idaho at 812, 241 P.3d at 985. 

Here, the district court’s jurisdiction expired, at the latest, on July 1, 2011 (365 days after 

entry of the judgment of conviction on July 1, 2010), and the record does not show the district 

court attempted to extend the time period. Twenty days later, on July 21, 2011, the district court 

entered an order relinquishing jurisdiction, acknowledging that the court’s jurisdiction had 

expired. Because the period of retained jurisdiction expired without the district court 

affirmatively placing Ramirez on probation, Ramirez remained committed to the custody of the 

Board. I.C. § 19-2601(4); State v. Taylor, 142 Idaho 30, 31, 121 P.3d 961, 962 (2005). 
3

Mindful that the district court’s order relinquishing jurisdiction was entered after the 

court’s jurisdiction expired, Ramirez asserts the district court abused its discretion by failing to 

reduce her sentence upon relinquishing jurisdiction. The decision of whether to modify the 

original sentence after a period of retained jurisdiction 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). It is undisputed in this case that the district court’s jurisdiction 

expired prior to entry of its order relinquishing jurisdiction. The court was, therefore, without 

authority to reduce Ramirez’s sentence.1

 Any effort by a court to alter a sentence after a 

defendant has been committed to the custody of the Board is an impermissible invasion of the 

authority of the Board. Petersen, 149 Idaho at 812-13, 241 P.3d at 985-86; Williams, 126 Idaho 

at 43, 878 P.2d at 217. As such, Ramirez has failed to show the district court abused its 

discretion by failing to reduce her sentence upon relinquishing jurisdiction. The district court’s 

order relinquishing jurisdiction and executing Ramirez’s original, unified sentence of seven 

years, with three years determinate, is affirmed. 

 

1 Even assuming the district court had jurisdiction pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule 35, 

Ramirez has failed to show the district court abused its discretion by failing to reduce her 

sentence upon relinquishing jurisdiction.