State of Idaho v. Aaron James Holt

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50967

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 8, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
AARON JAMES HOLT, ) 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. Lynn G. Norton, District Judge.

Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A. Heffner, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Aaron James Holt pled guilty to aggravated assault, Idaho Code §§ 18-901(b), -905(a).
The district court imposed a unified sentence of five years, with one and one-half years
determinate, suspended the sentence, and placed Holt on a term of probation. Subsequently, Holt
admitted to violating the terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked
probation, ordered execution of the original sentence, and retained jurisdiction. Following the
jurisdictional review hearing, the district court revoked probation and executed the previously
suspended sentence. Holt appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in
relinquishing jurisdiction instead of allowing Holt to complete the period of retained jurisdiction
or granting probation.

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 Holt has
failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction.
The order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction and Holt’s sentence are affirmed.

2