State v. Harley Lynne Orshal

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39327

STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 585 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: August 9, 2012 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) HARLEY LYNNE ORSHAL, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant.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. Michael E. Wetherell, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years, for aggravated battery, affirmed; order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM Harley Lynne Orshal was convicted of aggravated battery, Idaho Code §§ 18-903(a), 18- 907(a). The district court imposed a unified fifteen-year sentence with a ten-year determinate term and retained jurisdiction. At the conclusion of the retained jurisdiction program, the court relinquished jurisdiction and ordered execution of Orshal’s sentence. Orshal appeals the court’s decision to relinquish jurisdiction and contends that the court abused its discretion in failing to sua sponte reduce his sentence upon 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 the 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. 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). 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 Orshal’s original sentence, without modification. Therefore, the order relinquishing jurisdiction and directing execution of Orshal’s previously suspended sentence is affirmed.