State of Idaho v. Jeremy Wayne Feasel

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50595

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: February 5, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JEREMY WAYNE FEASEL, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Nancy A. Baskin, District Judge.

Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
Jeremy Wayne Feasel pled guilty to felony domestic battery. I.C. §§ 18-918(2), 18-903(a),
and 18-918(4). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district
court sentenced Feasel to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of
three years. The district court retained jurisdiction, and Feasel was sent to participate in the rider
program.
At the conclusion of Feasel’s rider, the jurisdictional review committee recommended that
he be placed on probation. At the jurisdictional review hearing, the district court reminded Feasel
that it had only retained jurisdiction for evaluative purposes in order for him to begin treatment

1
and relinquished jurisdiction. Feasel appeals, claiming that the district court erred by refusing to
grant probation.
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).
A district court’s decision to relinquish jurisdiction will not be deemed an abuse of discretion if
the trial court has sufficient information to determine that a suspended sentence and probation
would be inappropriate. State v. Statton, 136 Idaho 135, 137, 30 P.3d 290, 292 (2001). The record
in this case shows that the district court properly considered the information before it and
determined that probation was not appropriate.
Feasel 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 Feasel’s case. The record does not indicate that the district court
abused its discretion in sentencing.
The order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction and Feasel’s sentence are affirmed.

2