Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. Lansing L. Haynes, District Judge.
2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 453
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
OPINION AND SHALL NOT
BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Orders relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed; order granting I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.
Before LANSING, Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge
In Docket No. 39728, Shawn Michael Horn entered an Alford*fn1 plea to aggravated assault.
I.C. §§ 18-901, 18-905. In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge of robbery was dismissed. The district court sentenced Horn to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year, but suspended the sentence and placed Horn on probation. Horn admitted to violating the terms of the probation, served thirty days in jail, and was again placed on probation.
Thereafter, Horn again admitted to violating his probation. The district court revoked probation, ordered execution of the sentence, but retained jurisdiction. Following successful completion of his rider, the district court once again placed Horn on probation. In Docket No. 39729, Horn pled guilty to burglary. I.C. § 18-1401. In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge of grand theft was dismissed. The district court sentenced Horn to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, to run concurrent with Horn's sentence for aggravated assault.
Because of Horn's conviction for grand theft, the district court revoked Horn's probation with regard to the aggravated assault. The district court ordered execution of Horn's aggravated assault sentence and retained jurisdiction in both cases.
After Horn completed his rider, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. Horn filed I.C.R. 35 motions for reductions of his sentences. The district court denied Horn's motion as to his sentence for aggravated assault. Regarding Horn's motion to reduce his sentence for burglary, the district court granted the motion and reduced Horn's sentence to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years. Horn appeals, claiming that the district court erred by relinquishing jurisdiction, that his sentences are excessive, the district court erred in denying his Rule 35 motion as to his aggravated assault sentence, and erred in granting his Rule 35 motion for his burglary sentence by not further reducing his sentence. Horn also asserts that the Idaho Supreme Court deprived him of his right to due process when it only partially granted a motion to augment the record on appeal.
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 Horn has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction.
Horn also contends that his sentences are excessive, constitute an abuse of discretion, and that the district court should have sua sponte reduced his sentences. 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).
Horn argues that all of the relevant goals of sentencing could have been accomplished with probation or another period of retained jurisdiction. As noted above, however, the district court found that probation was not an appropriate course of action in Horn's case. Horn has ...