Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State of Idaho v. Diana Hernandez

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO


August 1, 2012

STATE OF IDAHO,
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
DIANA HERNANDEZ,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bingham County. Hon. David C. Nye, District Judge.

Per curiam.

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 568

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Order relinquishing jurisdiction and requiring execution of unified six-year sentence with two-year determinate term without modification for possession of of a controlled substance, affirmed.

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

Diana Hernandez pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine. Idaho Code § 37- 2732(c)(1). The district court imposed a unified six-year sentence with a two-year determinate term, suspended the sentence and placed Hernandez on supervised probation for five years with the condition that she successfully complete a county drug court program. Following numerous failures to comply with drug court conditions, Hernandez was eventually suspended from the drug court program. Hernandez's probation officer filed a report of violation due to Hernandez's failure to successfully complete the drug court program. Hernandez admitted to violating the terms of her probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence and retained jurisdiction. Following the period of retained jurisdiction, the district court suspended the sentence and placed Hernandez on supervised probation for five years. After Hernandez again admitted to violating the terms of her probation, the district court revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence and again retained jurisdiction. Following the period of retained jurisdiction, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. Hernandez appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion by relinquishing jurisdiction and ordering execution of her sentence without modification.

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, and we therefore affirm the order relinquishing jurisdiction.

Sentencing is also a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review and the factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of a sentence are well established and need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871- 73 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (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).

Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion by ordering execution of Hernandez's original sentence and by refusing to sua sponte reduce her sentence. Therefore, the order relinquishing jurisdiction and directing execution of Hernandez's previously suspended sentence are affirmed.

20120801

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.