tion of the State,” and that her “failure to appeal the unsatisfactory discharge in the Discharge
Order waived her current attempt to amend the Judgment by means of Idaho Code § 19-
2604(1).” Palma appeals and asserts that the district court erred by concluding that Palma
waived her ability to seek relief under Section 19-2604.
                                                II.
                                           ANALYSIS
       Idaho Code Section 19-2604(1) currently provides:
               (1) If sentence has been imposed but suspended, or if sentence has been
       withheld, upon application of the defendant and upon satisfactory showing that:
               (a) The court did not find, and the defendant did not admit, in any
               probation violation proceeding that the defendant violated any of
               the terms or conditions of probation
               ....
       the court may, if convinced by the showing made that there is no longer cause for
       continuing the period of probation, and if it be compatible with the public
       interest . . . amend the judgment of conviction from a term in the custody of the
       state board of correction to “confinement in a penal facility” for the number of
       days served prior to suspension, and the amended judgment may be deemed to be
       a misdemeanor conviction.



1
       Palma contends that she never received notice of the discharge order.
2
        Palma erroneously requested the relief pursuant to Idaho Code Sections 19-2605(2) and
19-2604(2). However, the State conceded that the court had authority and discretion to grant the
relief Palma requested under Idaho Code Section 19-2604(1).

                                                 2
       Whether a defendant is entitled to relief under Idaho Code Section 19-2604 rests within
the discretion of the district court. State v. Mowrey, 134 Idaho 751, 753, 9 P.3d 1217, 1219
(2000); State v. Hanes, 137 Idaho 40, 41, 44 P.3d 295, 296 (Ct. App. 2002); Housley v. State,