State of Idaho v. Samantha Meshell Adrian

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51301

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: August 28, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
SAMANTHA MESHELL ADRIAN, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Kootenai County. Hon. John T. Mitchell, District Judge.

Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Samantha Meshell Adrian pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, Idaho Code
§ 37-2732(c)(1), and major contraband within a correctional facility, I.C. § 18-2510(3). For each
conviction, the district court imposed a concurrent, unified sentence of four years, with a minimum
period of incarceration of two years, but after a period of retained jurisdiction, the court suspended
the sentences and placed Adrian on probation. Subsequently, Adrian admitted to violating the
terms of the probation, and the district court again retained jurisdiction, and Adrian was sent to
participate in the rider program. After Adrian completed this rider, the district court relinquished
jurisdiction. Adrian appeals, claiming that the district court erred by relinquishing jurisdiction.

1
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 Adrian has
failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction.
The order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction is affirmed.

2