Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Jerome County. Hon. John K. Butler, District Judge.
2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 358
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Order relinquishing jurisdiction and executing original sentence of a unified term of fifteen years, with five years determinate, for aggravated battery, affirmed.
Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge
Justin Rae Harkins was found guilty of aggravated battery.*fn1 Idaho Code §§ 18-903, 18-907. The district court sentenced Harkins to a unified term of fifteen years, with five years determine, and retained jurisdiction. At the conclusion of the period of retained jurisdiction, the district court relinquished jurisdiction and executed Harkins' sentence. Harkins appeals, contending his sentence is excessive or, in the alternative, the district court abused its discretion by failing to reduce his sentence upon relinquishing jurisdiction.
Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review and the factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the 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).
Upon relinquishing jurisdiction, the trial court is authorized under Idaho Criminal Rule 35 to reduce the sentence. 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).
Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say the district court abused its discretion. Accordingly, the order relinquishing jurisdiction and requiring execution of ...