February 13, 2013
STATE OF IDAHO,
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Cassia County. Hon. Michael R. Crabtree, District Judge.
2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 361
) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed.
Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge
In this case we are asked to determine whether the district court abused its discretion in refusing to grant probation following a period of retained jurisdiction. We are also asked to review a unified sentence of twelve years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen years. We affirm.
Kirtis Vlahos pled guilty to one count of sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen years, I.C. § 18-1506(1)(b ). Following his plea, Vlahos was sentenced to twelve years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years. The district court retained jurisdiction for 180 days, and Vlahos was sent to participate in the rider program.
After Vlahos completed evaluation, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. Vlahos filed an I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of his sentence, which the district court denied. Vlahos appeals, claiming that the district court erred by in relinquishing jurisdiction and argues that the sentence of twelve years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years 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 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 Vlahos has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion, and we therefore affirm the order relinquishing jurisdiction.
Vlahos also contends that the unified sentence twelve years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, 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).
Vlahos 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 Vlahos's case. Accordingly, the sentence is affirmed.
The order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction and Vlahos's sentence are affirmed.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.