January 29, 2013
STATE OF IDAHO,
THOMAS MICHAEL CHEW,
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. John T. Mitchell, District Judge.
2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 348
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
OPINION AND SHALL NOT
BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed.
Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge
Thomas Michael Chew was convicted of stalking in the first degree, Idaho Code § 18- 7905. The district court imposed a five-year determinate sentence and retained jurisdiction. At the conclusion of the retained jurisdiction program, the district court relinquished jurisdiction and ordered execution of Chew's sentence, sua sponte reducing it to a unified five-year term with four years determinate. Chew appeals the district court's decision to relinquish jurisdiction.
The decision as to whether to place a defendant on probation or, instead, to relinquish jurisdiction is committed to the discretion of the sentencing court. State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 205-06, 786 P.2d 594, 596-97 (Ct. App. 1990). It follows that a decision to relinquish jurisdiction will not be disturbed on appeal except for an abuse of discretion. State v. Chapman, 120 Idaho 466, 472, 816 P.2d 1023, 1029 (Ct. App. 1991). Idaho Code § 19-2521 sets out the criteria a court must consider when deciding whether to grant probation or impose imprisonment. A decision to deny probation will not be held to represent an abuse of discretion if the decision is consistent with the Section 19-2521 standards. State v. Merwin, 131 Idaho 642, 962 P.2d 1026 (1998). The record in this case shows that the district court properly considered the information before it and determined that probation was not appropriate. Therefore, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
The order relinquishing jurisdiction is affirmed.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.