1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41572

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

GREGORY RAYMOND HIGGINS, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 719

Filed: September 11, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Canyon County. Hon. Molly J. Huskey, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and determinate life sentence for first degree murder, 

enhanced for use of a firearm during the commission of a crime, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, 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 GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Gregory Raymond Higgins, Jr. was found guilty of first degree murder, I.C. § 18-4001, 

18-4002 and 18-4003(a), and the use of a firearm during the commission of a crime, I.C. § 19-

2520. The district court sentenced Higgins to a determinate term of life imprisonment. Higgins 

appeals.

An appellate review of a sentence is based on an abuse of discretion standard. State v. 

Burdett, 134 Idaho 271, 276, 1 P.3d 299, 304 (Ct. App. 2000). Where a sentence is not illegal, 

the appellant has the burden to show that it is unreasonable and, thus, a clear abuse of discretion. 

State v. Brown, 121 Idaho 385, 393, 825 P.2d 482, 490 (1992). A sentence may represent such 

an abuse of discretion if it is shown to be unreasonable upon the facts of the case. State v. Nice, 
2

103 Idaho 89, 90, 645 P.2d 323, 324 (1982). A sentence of confinement is reasonable if it 

appears at the time of sentencing that confinement is necessary “to accomplish the primary 

objective of protecting society and to achieve any or all of the related goals of deterrence, 

rehabilitation or retribution applicable to a given case.” State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 

P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). Where an appellant contends that the sentencing court imposed 

an excessively harsh sentence, we conduct an independent review of the record, having regard 

for the nature of the offense, the character of the offender, and the protection of the public 

interest. State v. Reinke, 103 Idaho 771, 772, 653 P.2d 1183, 1184 (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 question before this Court is not what sentence it would have imposed but, rather, 

whether the district court abused its discretion. State v. Stevens, 146 Idaho 139, 148-49, 191 

P.3d 217, 226-27 (2008). Where reasonable minds might differ, the discretion vested in the trial 

court will be respected and this Court will not supplant the views of the trial court with its own. 

State v. Windom, 150 Idaho 873, 875, 253 P.3d 310, 312 (2011). 

A fixed life sentence requires a high degree of certainty that the perpetrator could never 

be safely released back into society or that the nature of the offense requires that the individual 

spend the rest of his or her life behind bars. Windom, 150 Idaho at 876, 253 P.3d at 313. See 

also State v. Li, 131 Idaho 126, 129, 952 P.2d 1262, 1265 (Ct. App. 1998); State v. Eubank, 114 

Idaho 635, 638, 759 P.2d 926, 929 (Ct. App. 1988). At sentencing, the district court specifically 

recognized that the sentencing decision was committed to its discretion and that it was required 

to act within the bounds of that discretion through an exercise of reason. The district court 

discussed the goals of sentencing, as well as the factors set forth in I.C. § 19-2521 and the 

standard set forth in Windom for imposition of a fixed life sentence. 

Higgins contends that his sentence is excessive. The sentence imposed does not exceed 

the maximum. Therefore, Higgins must show that the sentence is unreasonable under any 

reasonable view of the facts. See Windom, 150 Idaho at 875, 253 P.3d at 312. Higgins has failed 

to show that the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Higgins’s judgment of conviction 

and determinate life sentence are affirmed.