State of Idaho v. Brian Arthur Hodgson

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 53119

STATE OF IDAHO, )

) Filed: August 11, 2026 Plaintiff-Respondent, )

) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. )

) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED BRIAN ARTHUR HODGSON, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. )

)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Benewah 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; University of Idaho Legal Aid Clinic; Katherine Ball; Bridgette Robison, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before TRIBE, Chief Judge; FLEMING, Judge and PETTY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM Brian Arthur Hodgson pled guilty to aggravated battery, Idaho Code § 18-907(1)(a). The district court imposed a unified sentence of 10 years, with a minimum period of incarceration of five years. The district court retained jurisdiction, and Hodgson was sent to participate in the rider program. After Hodgson completed his rider, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. Hodgson appeals, claiming that the district court erred by refusing to grant 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

2

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 Hodgson has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction. The order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction is affirmed.