STATE OF IDAHO v. MICHAEL BRIAN LaCAZE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 49761

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 27, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
MICHAEL BRIAN LaCAZE, ) 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. John T. Mitchell, District Judge.

Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Emily M. Joyce, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM
Michael Brian LaCaze pled guilty to burglary, Idaho Code § 18-1401. In exchange for
his guilty plea, an additional charge that he was a persistent violator was dismissed. The district
court imposed a unified term of ten years with five years determinate and placed LaCaze on
probation for period of five years. As part of LaCaze’s probation, the district court ordered that
he had until November 10, 2020, to provide proof that he was living at the Rising Strong
program. LaCaze failed to be accepted into the Rising Strong program and the district court
found LaCaze was in violation of his probation. The district court revoked LaCaze’s probation
and retained jurisdiction. A few days after LaCaze arrived at the rider facility, the deputy
warden recommended relinquishing jurisdiction. The district court relinquished jurisdiction and

1
executed the underlying sentence. LaCaze appeals, claiming that the district court erred by
relinquishing jurisdiction and executing his original sentence.
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 continuing to retain jurisdiction was not appropriate.
We hold that LaCaze has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in
relinquishing jurisdiction.
The order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction is affirmed.

2