State of Idaho v. Justin Dean Peterson

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51058

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: July 5, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JUSTIN DEAN PETERSON, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Kootenai County. Hon. Scott Wayman, District Judge; Hon. John T. Mitchell,
District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and sentence, order relinquishing jurisdiction, and order
denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, 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 TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Justin Dean Peterson pled guilty to felony driving under the influence, Idaho Code §§ 18-
8004, -8005(6). The district court imposed a unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of incarceration of five years, and retained jurisdiction. After Peterson completed his rider, the
district court relinquished jurisdiction. Peterson motioned for an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 reduction
of sentence at his jurisdictional review hearing, which the district court denied. Peterson appeals,
claiming the district court erred by: (1) imposing an excessive sentence; (2) relinquishing
jurisdiction following his rider; and (3) denying his I.C.R. 35 motion.

1
First, 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); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). That
discretion includes the trial court’s decision regarding whether a defendant should be placed on
probation and whether to retain jurisdiction. I.C. § 19-2601(3), (4); State v. Reber, 138 Idaho 275,
278, 61 P.3d 632, 635 (Ct. App. 2002); 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 did not abuse its discretion by imposing sentence or by determining that
probation was not appropriate.
Second, following a period of retained jurisdiction, 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 following the retained jurisdiction. Peterson has failed to show that the district
court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction.
Finally, a motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency,
addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d
23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In presenting
an I.C.R. 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of new or
additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the motion. State
v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the record, including
any new information submitted, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.
Therefore, Peterson’s judgment of conviction and sentence, order relinquishing
jurisdiction, and order denying Peterson’s I.C.R. 35 motion are affirmed.

2