State v. Baker

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45633

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: October 11, 2018
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
MICHAEL CHARLES BAKER, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bannock County. Hon. Robert C. Naftz, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and sentence and order relinquishing
jurisdiction, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
Michael Charles Baker pleaded guilty to battery with intent to commit a serious felony,
Idaho Code §§ 18-911, 18-915(1)(a), and 18-903. The district court imposed a unified ten-year
sentence, with three years determinate. The district court retained jurisdiction, and Baker was
sent to participate in the rider program. After Baker completed his rider, the district court
relinquished jurisdiction. Baker appeals, claiming that the district court erred by relinquishing
jurisdiction. He also argues his sentence is excessive and constitutes an abuse of discretion.
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

1
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 Baker has
failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction.
Baker also contends that his sentence is excessive and constitutes an abuse of discretion.
Sentences are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Our appellate standard of review and the
factors to be considered when evaluating the reasonableness of a sentence are well-established.
State v. Burdett, 134 Idaho 271, 1 P.3d 299 (Ct. App. 2000); State v. Sanchez, 115 Idaho 776,
769 P.2d 1148 (Ct. App. 1989); State v. Reinke, 103 Idaho 771, 653 P.2d 1183 (Ct. App. 1982);
State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (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). The record does not indicate that the district court abused its discretion in
sentencing.
The order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction and Baker’s sentence are
affirmed.

2