State of Idaho v. Nelson Leonel Hidalgo

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50503

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: January 2, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
NELSON LEONEL HIDALGO, ) 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. James S. Cawthon, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of confinement of four years, for felony domestic battery, affirmed; order
relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim 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 LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Nelson Leonel Hidalgo pled guilty to felony domestic battery. I.C. §§ 18-918(2) and 18-
903(a). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court
sentenced Hidalgo to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of four
years. However, the district court retained jurisdiction and sent Hidalgo to participate in the rider
program. Following completion of his rider, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. Hidalgo

1
appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive and that the district court erred in relinquishing
jurisdiction.
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).
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.
Hidalgo argues that all of the relevant goals of sentencing could have been accomplished
with probation. As noted above, however, the district court found that probation was not an
appropriate course of action in Hidalgo’s case. The record does not indicate that the district court
abused its discretion in sentencing.
Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that
the district court abused its discretion in sentencing or in relinquishing jurisdiction. Therefore,
Hidalgo’s judgment of conviction and sentence and the order relinquishing jurisdiction are
affirmed.

2