State of Idaho v. Alice Nicole Dees

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52756

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 14, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ALICE NICOLE DEES, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bingham County. Hon. Stevan H. Thompson, District Judge.

Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before TRIBE, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Alice Nicole Dees pled guilty to fraud by computer, I.C. § 18-2022(1), and criminal
possession of a financial transaction number, I.C. § 18-3125(4). In exchange for her guilty pleas,
additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Dees to concurrent unified terms
of five years, with minimum periods of confinement of two years. The district court suspended
execution of the sentences, retained jurisdiction, and Dees was sent to participate in the rider
program. Dees filed an I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of her sentences, which the district court
denied.

1
After Dees completed her rider, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. Dees appeals,
claiming that the district court erred by refusing to grant probation. She also argues her sentences
are excesive and constitute an abuse of discretion.
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 Dees has failed to show that the
district court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction.
Dees also contends that her sentences are excesive and constitute an abuse of discretion.
Sentences are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Our appellate standard of review and the
factors to be considered when evaluating the reasonableness of a sentence are well-established.
State v. Burdett, 134 Idaho 271, 1 P.3d 299 (Ct. App. 2000); State v. Sanchez, 115 Idaho 776, 769
P.2d 1148 (Ct. App. 1989); State v. Reinke, 103 Idaho 771, 653 P.2d 1183 (Ct. App. 1982); State
v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (Ct. App. 1982). 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). Our role is limited to determining whether reasonable minds could reach the same
conclusion as the district court. State v. Biggs, 168 Idaho 112, 116, 480 P.3d 150, 154 (Ct. App.
2020).
Dees 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 Dees’ case. The record does not indicate that the district court abused its
discretion in sentencing.
The order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction and Dees’ sentences are affirmed.

2