Court Opinion

ID: 4389417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-04-22 18:03:55.647419+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:35.644212
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                        Docket No. 45749

STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )
                                                )    Filed: April 19, 2019
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )
                                                )    Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
v.                                              )
                                                )    THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
GREGORY CONAN WILLIAMS,                         )    OPINION AND SHALL NOT
                                                )    BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
       Defendant-Appellant.                     )
                                                )

       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; Lori 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 district 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 relinquishing 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 discretion of the district
court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Hood, 102

                                                 1
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 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 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).
       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.

                                                   2