State v. Miguel Marquez

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44254

STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 318 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: January 17, 2017 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) MIGUEL MARQUEZ, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY )

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Minidoka County. Hon. Jonathan P. Brody, District Judge.

Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM Miguel Marquez pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1). The district court imposed a unified sentence of seven years, with two years determinate. The district court retained jurisdiction, and Marquez was sent to participate in the rider program. After Marquez completed his rider, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. Marquez appeals, claiming that the district court erred by refusing to grant probation. 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 Marquez has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction. Marquez 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 Marquez’s case. The record does not indicate that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing. The order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction is affirmed.