State of Idaho v. Shannon Shay Jennings

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 51862 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: April 9, 2025 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED SHANNON SHAY JENNINGS, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Shoshone County. Hon. Barbara Duggan, District Judge.

Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and TRIBE, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Shannon Shay Jennings pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm, Idaho Code § 18- 3316(1), and felony possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1).

In exchange for her guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of incarceration of two years, and a unified sentence of four years, with a minimum period of incarceration of two years, respectively. The court ordered the sentences to run concurrently and retained jurisdiction. Following a period of retained jurisdiction, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. Jennings appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction instead of granting probation.

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 Jennings has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction.

The order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction is affirmed.