State of Idaho v. Kenneth Joshua Lindley

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50436

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: November 3, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
KENNETH JOSHUA LINDLEY, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Jerome County. Hon. Rosemary Emory, District Judge.

Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster,
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 HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Kenneth Joshua Lindley pled guilty to battery with intent to commit a serious felony
(lewd conduct), Idaho Code §§ 18-903, 18-911.1 The district court imposed a unified term of
fifteen years with three years determinate, and retained jurisdiction. Following the period of
retained jurisdiction, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. Lindley appeals, claiming that
the district court erred by refusing to grant probation.
The decision as to whether to place a defendant on probation or, instead, to relinquish
jurisdiction is committed to the discretion of the sentencing court. State v. Hernandez, 122 Idaho

1
The judgment of conviction contains a typographical error in the citation to Idaho Code
§ 37-2732(a)(1)(A), the correct citation should be Idaho Code §§ 18-903, 18-911.
1
227, 230, 832 P.2d 1162, 1165 (Ct. App. 1992); State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 786 P.2d 594 (Ct.
App. 1990); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 567, 650 P.2d 707, 709 (Ct. App. 1982). Therefore,
a decision to relinquish jurisdiction will not be disturbed on appeal except for an abuse of
discretion. State v. Chapman, 120 Idaho 466, 816 P.2d 1023 (Ct. App. 1991). 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 the district court did not abuse its discretion,
and we therefore affirm the order relinquishing jurisdiction.

2