1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 42617/42619

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

TODD JEFFREY HACKMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 550

Filed: July 14, 2015

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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, 

Bonneville County. Hon. Joel E. Tingey, District Judge. 

Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed; judgment of conviction and sentence 

for possession of methamphetamine, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, 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 GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

This is a consolidated appeal. In Docket No. 42619, Todd Jeffrey Hackman pled guilty 

to delivery of methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-2732(a)(1)(A). In exchange for his guilty 

plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court sentenced Hackman to eight years 

with two and one-half years determinate, suspended the sentence, and placed Hackman on 

probation. Subsequently, Hackman admitted to violating several terms of his probation. The 

district court revoked probation and ordered retained jurisdiction. At Hackman’s request, the 

district court granted one additional day of work release “to tie things up” before entering the 

retained jurisdiction program. Hackman failed to report for his rider which led to charges of 
2

escape, I.C. § 18-2505, and possession of methamphetamine, I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1), in Docket 

No. 42617. Hackman pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine and, in exchange, the State 

dismissed the escape charge. The district court imposed a unified seven-year sentence with a 

three-year determinate term to run concurrently with the sentence in Docket No. 42619, and 

relinquished jurisdiction in Docket No. 42619. Hackman filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 

motion requesting leniency which was denied. Hackman appeals, contending that the district 

court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction in Docket No. 42619 and that his 

sentence is Docket No. 42617 is excessive.

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 Hackman

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

Hackman also contends that his sentence in Docket No. 42617 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 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). 

Hackman 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 Hackman’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 Hackman’s sentences are 

affirmed.