State v. Goodlett

1
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 53304
STATE OF IDAHO,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
IGNACIO SAVON GOODLETT,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Filed: October 15, 2026
Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
OPINION AND SHALL NOT
BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin
Falls County. Hon. Benjamin J. Cluff, District Judge.
Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed.
Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kierra W. Mai, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________
Before LORELLO, Judge; FLEMING, Judge
and PETTY, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Ignacio Savon Goodlett pled guilty to felony driving under the influence, Idaho
Code §§ 18-8004(1)(a), -8005(6). In exchange for his guilty plea, the State agreed to recommend
a unified sentence of five years with three years determinate and that the district court retain
jurisdiction. At sentencing, Goodlett requested to be placed on a term of probation with an
underlying unified sentence of five years with two years determinate. The district court sentenced
Goodlett to a unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years,
and retained jurisdiction.
Following a period of retained jurisdiction, the district court relinquished jurisdiction and
imposed a reduced sentence of five years, with a minimum period of incarceration of two years,

2
pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule 35.1 Goodlett appeals, contending that the district court abused
its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction instead of granting 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).
The record in this case shows that the district court held a hearing and properly considered the
information before it and determined that probation was not appropriate. We hold that Goodlett
has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction.
The order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction is affirmed.
1 At the retained jurisdiction review hearing, the State requested that the district court
relinquish jurisdiction, but that the court reconsider its sentence pursuant to Idaho Criminal
Rule 35 and impose five years, with two years determinate. The district court’s amendment of
Goodlett’s sentence is not challenged on appeal.