Opinion ID: 1196528
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Review of District Court's Sentencing Discretion.

Text: Because Shiloff's sentences are within the statutory limits, Shiloff carries the burden of establishing that his sentences represent a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Brown, 121 Idaho 385, 825 P.2d 482 (1992). A sentence may represent such an abuse if it is shown to be unreasonable on the facts of the case. State v. Nice, 103 Idaho 89, 645 P.2d 323 (1982). A period of confinement is reasonable if, at the time of sentencing, it appears 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. Broadhead, 120 Idaho 141, 145, 814 P.2d 401, 405 (1991), overruled on other grounds by State v. Brown, 121 Idaho 385, 825 P.2d 482 (1992) (quoting State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct.App.1982)). In determining whether a period of confinement appears necessary to accomplish these objectives, we conduct an independent review of the record, focusing on the nature of the offense, the character of the offender, and the protection of the public interest. State v. Wolfe, 99 Idaho 382, 384, 582 P.2d 728, 730 (1978). [W]e will not substitute our view for that of a sentencing judge where reasonable minds might differ. Broadhead, 120 Idaho at 146, 814 P.2d at 406 (quoting Toohill, 103 Idaho at 568, 650 P.2d at 710). Because we consider the fixed portion of the sentence imposed to be the term of confinement for the purpose of appellate review, Broadhead, 120 Idaho at 146, 814 P.2d at 406; State v. Kysar, 116 Idaho 992, 999, 783 P.2d 859, 866 (1989), the question we must decide is whether Shiloff's sentence of two years' confinement is unduly harsh in light of his character, the nature of his offense, and the goals of sentencing, i.e., protection of society, deterrence of future crimes, rehabilitation and retribution. Broadhead, 120 Idaho at 146, 814 P.2d at 406; Wolfe, 99 Idaho at 384, 582 P.2d at 730. The record reveals the following with respect to Shiloff's character and the nature of his offenses. In July of 1991, Shiloff purchased a jet ski boat from Dick Eldredge for $2,800, using the fictitious name of Patrick Mrender, and a phony deposit slip which he represented was a valid counter check. In August of 1991, Shiloff made unauthorized use of his girlfriend's mother's credit card in approximately twelve different transactions, purchasing over $2,000 of merchandise. In late September, 1991, Shiloff purchased a road grader from M.C. Stanley for $1,060 using a phony counter check. A couple of days later Shiloff, using the fictitious name of Mike McMillan and a fictitious address and phone number, gave Cliff Olson a phony check of $10,000 for a dump truck and backhoe. The record shows that Shiloff retained possession of all these vehicles and equipment even after the owners discovered that the counter checks were invalid, and that when he found out his victims might be able to get their property back he caused serious damage to the boat, dump truck and backhoe. The district judge determined that the number and value of Shiloff's offenses demonstrated a serious pattern of criminal activity. The judge noted that by the nature of these offenses  multiple crimes over a lengthy period of time, using multiple aliases, making deliberate choices to deceive others to gain advantage  Shiloff presented a much higher risk to reoffend than persons who steal from others on a momentary impulse. Shiloff's assertion on appeal that the district judge did not give enough consideration to the role which alcohol played in his offenses is without merit. The district court expressly distinguished Shiloff's offenses from those of persons who get drunk and help themselves to something that doesn't belong to them, concluding that these were thought-out, deliberate patterns of fraud, and that Shiloff was busily perpetrating all sorts of scams and engaged in the business of cheating people. The district judge expressly found that there was no justification or excuse for Shiloff's deceitful conduct, and found it particularly inexcusable that in addition to cheating the victims out of their property, when Shiloff learned he was under investigation and the victims might be able to get their property back, he destroyed much of it. These findings are supported by the record. The record also shows that Shiloff had prior misdemeanor convictions for writing an insufficient funds check and driving under the influence. The district court determined that based on the seriousness of the offenses and Shiloff's risk of reoffense, a sentence was warranted which would punish Shiloff for his crimes and hopefully deter such conduct in the future, while protecting society from further offenses by Shiloff for a minimum of two years. The record shows that the district court properly considered Shiloff's character and the nature of his offenses in light of the objectives of sentencing: protection of society, deterrence, rehabilitation and punishment. Because Shiloff's sentences are reasonable in light of these factors, the district court did not abuse its sentencing discretion.