State of Idaho v. Lee William Rosevear

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51499

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: February 5, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
LEE WILLIAM ROSEVEAR, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) 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.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period
of confinement of two and one-half years, for stalking in the first degree, affirmed;
order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jacob L. Westerfield, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Lee William Rosevear pled guilty to stalking in the first degree. I.C. § 18-7905. The
district court sentenced Rosevear to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of
confinement of two and one-half years. The district court retained jurisdiction and sent Rosevear
to participate in the rider program. Following completion of his rider, the district court
relinquished jurisdiction. Rosevear appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive and that the
district court erred in relinquishing jurisdiction.

1
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). 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).
Rosevear argues that the district court erred by relinquishing jurisdiction following his rider
and that all of the relevant goals of sentencing could have been accomplished with 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 properly considered the information before it and determined that
probation was not appropriate.
Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that
the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Rosevear’s judgment of conviction and sentence
as well as the order relinquishing jurisdiction are affirmed.

2