Opinion ID: 874778
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the District Court Abuse Its Discretion in Imposing Sentence?

Text: Defendant contends that the district court abused its discretion in imposing sentence. We review the length of a sentence under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Al-Kotrani, 141 Idaho 66, 70, 106 P.3d 392, 396 (2005). When a sentence is challenged as being excessively harsh, we independently review the record on appeal, having due regard for the nature of the offense, the character of the offender, and the protection of the public interest. State v. Jeppesen, 138 Idaho 71, 76, 57 P.3d 782, 787 (2002). [W]hen doing so we consider the defendant's entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). However, [w]e presume that the fixed portion of the sentence will be the defendant's probable term of confinement. That is because whether or not a defendant serves longer than the fixed portion of the sentence is a matter left to the sole discretion of the parole board. . . . Id. (citation omitted). When determining whether the sentence is excessive, we must consider: (1) the protection of society; (2) deterrence of the defendant and others; (3) the possibility of the defendant's rehabilitation; and (4) punishment or retribution for the defendant. State v. Strand, 137 Idaho 457, 460-61, 50 P.3d 472, 475-76 (2002). In order to show that the sentence imposed was unreasonable, the defendant must show that the sentence, in light of the governing criteria, is excessive under any reasonable view of the facts. State v. Cannady, 137 Idaho 67, 73, 44 P.3d 1122, 1128 (2002). Defendant contends that the sentence constituted an abuse of discretion because he would have started college in the spring of 2008 had he not been incarcerated in Indiana for violating his probation on a felony battery charge; in 1996 while in Indiana he had been diagnosed as bipolar and had received medication and treatment, both inpatient and outpatient; he was taking lithium at the time of sentencing in this case; he did not commit any new crimes during the three months he was out on bail in this case; and he apologized during the sentencing hearing and stated he had learned his lesson. Defendant argues that a lesser sentence would have accomplished the goals of sentencing and that the district court did not explain the need for the particular length of sentence imposed. `Idaho's sentencing scheme requires no [judicial] findings of fact under I.C. § 19-2521.' State v. Stevens, 146 Idaho 139, 149, 191 P.3d 217, 227 (2008) (quoting State v. Stover, 140 Idaho 927, 931, 104 P.3d 969, 973 (2005)). A court is not required to recite the factors set forth in Idaho Code § 19-2521, nor is it required to give reasons for imposing the sentence. Stevens at 149, 191 P.3d at 227. During a seven-day period, Defendant aggressively sexually molested two under-age girls and aggressively attempted to sexually molest a third. He had a mental-health evaluation in preparation for sentencing, and the evaluator stated that it is unlikely that [Defendant] is suffering from a severe and reliably diagnosable mental illness. The evaluator concluded: [Defendant's] unresolved issues primarily appear to be his resentment towards authority and poor boundary issues with females. He reports prior behavioral patterns of destroying females' property after challenging issues emerged during the relationship. His criminal record included convictions for criminal mischief and residential entry in 2001 in Indiana; criminal mischief, resisting law enforcement, and two batteries, one of a law enforcement officer, in 2003 in Indiana; battery in 2007 in Bannock County, Idaho, with an unlawful entry charge dismissed; using the telephone to harass in Bannock County in 2007; malicious injury to property in Bannock County in 2007; stalking in Bannock County in 2007; and violation of a no-contact order in Bannock County in 2008, with a battery charge dismissed. The probation violation in Indiana was absconding from supervision by leaving the state. Prior to imposing sentence, the district court stated that it was considering the deterrence of Defendant and others, the need to protect society, rehabilitation, and the effect of Defendant's conduct on the victim. Defendant has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in imposing sentence.