Opinion ID: 1214602
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: it was reasonable for the district court to sentence oar to a minimum fixed sentence of five years

Text: The district court sentenced Oar to a mandatory two and one-half years for each violation of I.C. § 18-1508A, which Oar must serve consecutively, and to a subsequent indeterminate sentence not to exceed twelve and one-half years, served consecutively, for each count. Oar maintains that the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him to a five year minimum fixed sentence. This Court considers only the fixed portion of a sentence, so we must decide if five years of confinement is unreasonable. This Court recently explained its standard for reviewing requests for sentence reductions: [If a defendant's sentence is] within the statutory limits, [the defendant] carries the burden of establishing that [the] sentence[] represents[s] a clear abuse of discretion. A sentence may represent such an abuse if it is shown to be unreasonable on the facts of the case. 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. 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. [W]e will not substitute our view for that of a sentencing judge where reasonable minds might differ.... [In summary], the question we must decide is whether [the defendant's] sentence .... is unduly harsh in light of [the defendant's] character, the nature of [the defendant's] offense, and the goals of sentencing, i.e., protection of society, deterrence of future crimes, rehabilitation, and retribution. State v. Shiloff, 125 Idaho 104, 106, 867 P.2d 978, 980 (1994) (citations omitted). First, the district court considered the nature of the offense and determined that the sexual abuse of a minor was a serious offense. This is a reasonable conclusion, especially considering the fact that a violation of I.C. § 18-1508A is a felony with maximum penalties of either life or fifteen years in prison. Second, the district court considered Oar's character. The district court was particularly concerned with Oar's ego and tremendous arrogance. It seemed to the district court that Oar had potential, but believed that he could con everyone and that Oar's history showed that he had a willingness to take advantage of others and in addition to put others in danger. The Court noted that the defendant had never fully and honestly take[n] responsibility for his conduct and had been dishonest with the district court. The district court also reviewed each of the four goals of sentencing. When considering protection of society, the district court stated that Oar's history and actions in this case showed he would use his intelligence to take advantage of others. When considering deterrence, the district court stated that it was concerned that Oar must realize that his predatory conduct would result in jail time. When considering rehabilitation, the district court stated that although Oar showed potential, he failed to take advantage of several efforts for him to be rehabilitated including a withheld judgment in 1980, probation in 1986, 1990, and 1993, and a retained jurisdiction in 1991. Finally, when considering retribution, the district court found Oar's conduct reprehensible, especially because he had not taken responsibility for it. The district court's conclusions on Oar's character and the goals of sentencing are supported by the record. Oar has a considerable criminal history, including forgery and several DUIs, for which he has done very little jail time. Despite a significant alcohol problem and many efforts to rehabilitate, Oar continues to drink. Most importantly, although Oar claims that this is the first time he has been involved with this type of activity, the confidential presentence investigation report shows that before Oar's conviction in this case, the Boise Police Department had investigated him on at least two prior occasions in connection with very similar incidents. Each involved the use of his modelling placement agency, alcohol, a photo shoot, and young women (one 26, and the other 17 years old). The presentence investigation report concluded that Oar used the modelling agency as a ruse to gain an opportunity for unsolicited sexual contact. It also concluded that Oar is a danger to society, not a good candidate for probation, and should be incarcerated to protect society and rehabilitate Oar. The district court concluded, after evaluating each factor, that although it believed Oar may someday get the message that his behavior is unacceptable, because of his arrogance and expectation that he could con people, Oar needed to be sentenced to five years so that he could get the message that society was serious about not accepting his behavior and so that society would be protected from him. Since reasonable minds might differ with the district court's conclusion and sentence, in light of Oar's character, the offense, and the goals of sentencing, this Court will not substitute its view for the district court's view.