State v. Matthew James Remm

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43353

STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 309 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: January 7, 2016 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) MATTHEW JAMES REMM, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY )

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Lynn G. Norton, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twelve years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for enticement of a child through use of the Internet, affirmed; order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM Matthew James Remm pled guilty to enticement of a child through use of the Internet or other communication device. Idaho Code § 18-1509A. The district court sentenced Remm to a unified term of twelve years with two years determinate, and retained jurisdiction. Following a period of retained jurisdiction, the district court relinquished jurisdiction and ordered Remm’s sentence executed without reduction. Remm appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence and by relinquishing 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. Hernandez, 122 Idaho 227, 230, 832 P.2d 1162, 1165 (Ct. App. 1992); State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 786 P.2d 594 (Ct. App. 1990); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 567, 650 P.2d 707, 709 (Ct. App. 1982). Therefore, a decision to relinquish jurisdiction will not be disturbed on appeal except for an abuse of discretion. State v. Chapman, 120 Idaho 466, 816 P.2d 1023 (Ct. App. 1991). 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 the district court did not abuse its discretion, and we therefore affirm the order 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 a 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); Toohill, 103 Idaho at 568, 650 P.2d at 710. Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in ordering execution of Remm’s original sentence, without modification. Therefore, the order relinquishing jurisdiction and directing execution of Remm’s previously suspended sentence is affirmed.