Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. John T. Mitchell, District Judge.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Melanson, Judge
2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 368
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Order relinquishing jurisdiction and modifying sentence, affirmed.
Ronald Stanley Favini appeals from the district court's order relinquishing jurisdiction and modifying his sentence. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
In 2010, Favini inflicted a knife wound to another individual during an altercation outside of a bar. The state charged Favini with aggravated battery, I.C. §§ 18-903 and 18-907, along with deadly weapon and persistent violator enhancements. Favini was found guilty by a jury, and the district court found Favini to be a persistent violator. Favini then requested a mental health evaluation pursuant to I.C. § 19-2524, which the district court subsequently ordered. Prior to sentencing, Favini's attorney requested Favini undergo a mental competency evaluation pursuant to I.C. § 18-211. The district court granted this request and found Favini competent to proceed. The district court imposed a unified fifty-year sentence, with a minimum period of confinement of fifteen years, and retained jurisdiction for one year.
The Department of Correction recommended early termination of the retained jurisdiction period, and the district court held a hearing. At the hearing, Favini argued the district court should continue to retain jurisdiction and that the problems Favini exhibited while in the retained jurisdiction program were due to his mental health issues. Specifically, counsel for Favini stated:
I . . . made it fairly clear I think, I stopped the--did my best to stop this during the trial to ensure that my client was competent and then to inform the Court of his past mental health problems. They were immediately recognized when he ended up in the Theraputic Community, and I think that given his underlying psychosis, that trying to re-acclimate into a normal social environment as set up by this program is not the structure he needed.
The district court relinquished jurisdiction. In explaining its reasons for doing so, the district court noted the many violations and disciplinary issues Favini presented during the program. The district court further stated there was nothing to corroborate Favini's assertion that his behavior was a result of mental illness. The district court pointed to both the mental health evaluation under I.C. § 19-2524 and the I.C. § 18-211 competency evaluation and concluded neither evaluation supported Favini's claim. Favini did not object at the hearing to the district court's analysis. The district court ultimately modified the sentence to a unified term of fifty years, reducing the minimum period of confinement to five years. This appeal follows.
Favini argues that the district court abused its discretion by considering the competency evaluation during the hearing on whether to relinquish jurisdiction and that this constitutes fundamental error. Favini also argues that the sentence imposed is unreasonably excessive and constitutes an abuse of discretion. The state argues that the competency evaluation issue was not preserved for appeal and is not fundamental ...