State of Idaho v. Nehemiah James William MacKenzie

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52369

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: February 23, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
NEHEMIAH JAMES WILLIAM ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
MACKENZIE, ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Steven J. Hippler, District Judge.

Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion,
affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Stacey M. Donohue, 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; GRATTON, Judge;
and HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Nehemiah James William Mackenzie pled guilty to burglary, Idaho Code § 18-1401. In
exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced
Mackenzie to a unified term of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of two and
one-half years, and retained jurisdiction. At the rider review hearing, the State asked the district
court to follow the Idaho Department of Correction’s recommendation to relinquish jurisdiction.
Mackenzie requested the district court not relinquish jurisdiction or, in the alternative, give him a
chance to finish the rider program. As a second alternative, Mackenzie asked the district court to
reduce the determinate portion of his sentence pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule 35. The district

1
court denied Mackenzie’s requests and relinquished jurisdiction. Mackenzie appeals, asserting the
district court abused its discretion by relinquishing jurisdiction and denying his I.C.R. 35 motion.
First, 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. We hold that Mackenzie
has failed to show the district court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction.
Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Mackenzie’s I.C.R. 35 motion.
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 or
additional information submitted with Mackenzie’s I.C.R. 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of
discretion has been shown.
Therefore, the orders of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction and denying
Mackenzie’s I.C.R. 35 motion are affirmed.

2