State v. William Fishel ( 2010 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 37208
STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 641
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: September 10, 2010
)
v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
)
WILLIAM FISHEL, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin
Falls County. Hon. Randy J. Stoker, District Judge.
Order relinquishing jurisdiction and requiring execution of unified four-year
sentence with two-year determinate term for possession of methamphetamine,
affirmed.
Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Heather M. Carlson, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________
Before LANSING, Chief Judge, GRATTON, Judge
and MELANSON, Judge
PER CURIAM
William Fishel was convicted of possession of methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-
2732(c)(1). The district court imposed a unified sentence of four years with two years
determinate and retained jurisdiction. At the conclusion of the retained jurisdiction program, the
court relinquished jurisdiction and ordered execution of Fishel’s sentence. Fishel appeals,
contending that the court abused its discretion in failing to sua sponte reduce his sentence upon
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 a sentence are well established and
1
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). Applying these
standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court
abused its discretion in ordering execution of Fishel’s original sentence, without modification.
Therefore, the order relinquishing jurisdiction and directing execution of Fishel’s previously
suspended sentence is affirmed.
2