Court Opinion

ID: 9908650
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-11 16:03:43.474256+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:23.062935
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                          Docket No. 49994

 STATE OF IDAHO,                                  )
                                                  ) Filed: December 11, 2023
           Plaintiff-Respondent,                  )
                                                  ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
 v.                                               )
                                                  )
 JOSEPH R. BLACKER,                               )
                                                  )
           Defendant-Appellant.                   )
                                                  )

          Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
          Minidoka County. Hon. Jonathan P. Brody, District Judge.

          Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years with a minimum
          period of confinement of eleven years for attempted rape, affirmed; order denying
          I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

          Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds,
          Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

          Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Justin R. Porter, Deputy Attorney
          General, Boise, for respondent.
                    ________________________________________________

GRATTON, Judge
          Joseph R. Blacker appeals from the judgment of conviction, challenging the district court’s
sentence for attempted rape. Blacker argues that the district court abused its discretion by imposing
a unified sentence of fifteen years with eleven years determinate. Blacker also argues the district
court erred by denying his Idaho Criminal Rule 35(b) motion. For the reasons set forth below, we
affirm.

                                                   1
                                                  I.
                      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       Blacker pled guilty to attempted rape, Idaho Code § 18-6101. In exchange for his guilty
plea, additional charges were dismissed.1 The charges arose after Blacker, a sixteen year old, was
riding an ATV down a canal bank when he spotted the victim jogging. Blacker turned around and
started following the victim--whom he had never met. He eventually caught up to her, tackled her
from behind, held a knife against her throat, and started forcibly removing her clothing. As the
victim screamed for help, Blacker whispered, “no one is going to hear you.” The victim was able
to run away while he tried to unbutton his pants, but Blacker tackled her again. As another ATV
started to come nearby, the victim was able to run for safety and report the attack to law
enforcement. Blacker was subsequently arrested, and he admitted his involvement in the attack.
The juvenile court waived jurisdiction, and Blacker’s case was assigned to the district court.
       During the sentencing hearing, the district court reviewed the victim impact statement;
summarized Blacker’s presentence investigation report (PSI) and both the adult and juvenile
psychosexual evaluation (PSE); and considered the mitigating and aggravating factors. The
district court sentenced Blacker to a unified sentence of fifteen years with eleven years
determinate. The district court rejected Blacker’s request for a blended sentence, which would
have allowed Blacker to serve his remaining juvenile years in a juvenile facility before being
transferred to an adult facility for the rest of his term. Blacker filed an I.C.R. 35(b) motion, which
the district court denied. Blacker timely appeals.
                                                 II.
                                   STANDARD OF REVIEW
       Sentencing lies within the discretion of the trial court. State v. Casper, 169 Idaho 793, 797,
503 P.3d 1009, 1013 (2022). When reviewing whether the length of a sentence is excessive, the
appellate court reviews all the facts and circumstances in the case and focuses on whether the trial
court abused its discretion in fashioning the sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170
P.3d 387, 391 (2007); State v. Baker, 136 Idaho 576, 577, 38 P.3d 614, 615 (2001). When a trial
court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered

1
      According to the plea agreement, the State dismissed charges for aggravated assault, Idaho
Code § 18-905, and battery with intent to commit a serious felony, I.C. § 18-911. The plea
agreement left sentencing recommendations open.
                                                  2
inquiry to determine whether the trial court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion;
(2) acted within the boundaries of such discretion; (3) acted consistently with any legal standards
applicable to the specific choices before it; and (4) reached its decision by an exercise of reason.
State v. Herrera, 164 Idaho 261, 270, 429 P.3d 149, 158 (2018).
                                                III.
                                           ANALYSIS
       Blacker argues that the district court erred by imposing a unified sentence of fifteen years
with eleven years determinate, and by denying his I.C.R. 35(b) motion for reduction of sentence.
We will address each of his contentions in turn.
A.     The District Court’s Findings Are Supported by Substantial and Competent Evidence
       Blacker argues that the sentence imposed by the district court was an abuse of discretion,
claiming it was based on a clearly erroneous factual finding that he presents an extraordinarily
high risk to offend. The State contends that no error has been shown and that substantial and
competent evidence in the record supports the district court’s findings.
       The appellate court reviews the trial court’s factual findings for clear error. State v. Ish,
166 Idaho 492, 501, 461 P.3d 774, 783 (2020). Factual findings that are not supported by
substantial and competent evidence are clearly erroneous. State v. Henage, 143 Idaho 655, 659,
152 P.3d 16, 20 (2007). Conversely, factual findings that are supported by substantial and
competent evidence are not clearly erroneous and will not be overturned on appeal. State v.
Bishop, 146 Idaho 804, 810, 203 P.3d 1203, 1209 (2009); see Ish, 166 Idaho at 501, 461 P.3d at
783. Substantial and competent evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept
to support a conclusion. State v. Hess, 166 Idaho 707, 710, 462 P.3d 1171, 1174 (2020).
       As an initial matter, Blacker contends that it is “unclear” what “materials” the district court
was referencing when the court stated, “I think these materials add up to an extraordinary high
likelihood that there will be another victim if anything other than an imposed sentence is there.”
This argument lacks any merit. Before referencing “these materials” the district court identified
the sentencing documents and their content, including: the PSI, PSE, GAIN-I assessment, St.
Luke’s medical reports, a letter and medical reports from Blacker’s primary care physician,
Highland Ridge Hospital’s Psychiatric Evaluation, the psychological evaluation from The Autism
Clinic, the Liberty Healthcare Comprehensive Diagnostic Assessment, and other materials

                                                   3
provided by treatment providers and by Blacker’s family. It is, thus, clear what materials were
referenced by the district court.
       Blacker argues that the district court’s finding that he presents an extraordinarily high risk
of reoffending is not supported by substantial and competent evidence in the record and, thus,
constitutes clear error. Specifically, Blacker contends that this finding is contrary to: the
conclusion in the PSI and the PSE that Blacker presents a moderate risk for reoffending; the
presentence investigator’s assessment that Blacker presents a low risk for recidivism based on
his LSI-R risk categories; the psychosexual evaluator’s determination that Blacker presents a low
risk to reoffend when assessed as a juvenile, and a moderate risk to offend when assessed as an
adult; and the other relevant evidence in the record. We disagree.
       The district court considered all of the sentencing materials and the information therein.
The district court considered the risk assessments in the PSI and the PSE. Contrary to certain
arguments made by Blacker,2 the district court was not bound in its sentencing decision by the risk
assessments. Instead, the district court could, in the exercise of its discretion, consider the totality
of the evidence in the record in making its own overall assessment, taking into account the risk
Blacker presents and the primary goal of protecting the public. The district court did so.
       The district court outlined the horrific nature of Blacker’s crime. The district court found
that “this [was] an extremely violent crime” and a “significant” crime for a first-time offender.
Blacker denied that his attack was sexually motivated, stating that he was just having a bad day
and wanted to “make somebody else’s life worse than his own.” Blacker’s attack on his victim
was violent, unprovoked, and opportunistic. While Blacker had no prior criminal history, he has
a significant history of related misconduct. The PSE reveals that he sexually assaulted two female
classmates by unwanted groping. These instances were known to Blacker’s family and school
officials, but not adjudicated in the criminal justice system. Sentencing documents relate two
instances of hiding in the girls’ bathroom at school, harassing a female classmate, bringing a knife

2
         In his reply brief, Blacker notes that the Idaho Supreme Court has held that a sentencing
court “must reject consideration of inaccurate, unfounded, or unreliable information in the PSI,”
and “must redline from the PSI information it is excluding as inaccurate or unreliable.” State v.
Roman-Lopez, 171 Idaho 585, 601, 524 P.3d 864, 880 (2023) (citations omitted). Blacker points
out that the district court did not find the risk assessments in the PSI and PSE inaccurate,
unfounded, or inaccurate, and the prosecutor did not so argue. Blacker reasons that since the
district court did not modify the PSI, the court was bound by the risk assessments at sentencing.
This argument is specious and without support in law.
                                                   4
to school, and taking a student’s car for a joyride. Blacker was physically cruel to the family dog,
stole items, ruined an expensive piece of equipment by acting recklessly causing him to lose a job
after one week, and stole his dad’s credit card. The autism clinic’s evaluation concluded that
Blacker often defies adults’ requests; annoys, bullies, and teases others; and initiates physical
fights with his siblings. The various evaluations in the sentencing materials show a variety of
maladaptive behaviors. Further, Blacker’s mother reported that Blacker has demonstrated “sexual
curiosity that leads him to violate the boundaries of others and behave inappropriately in a sexual
manner.”
       The district court concluded that Blacker is a high risk to reoffend based on the information
provided to the court. The psychosexual assessments that indicate a moderate risk to reoffend
were individual components of the sentencing materials, which the district court considered as a
whole. The district court’s finding that Blacker presents an extraordinary likelihood of reoffending
is supported by substantial and competent evidence in the record.
B.     Sentencing Factors
       Blacker contends that the district court abused its discretion by placing too much emphasis
on protection of society in its sentencing decision. Blacker argues that the district court failed to
adequately consider his needs, amenability to treatment, and opportunities for treatment within the
sentencing factors of rehabilitation and, ultimately, protection of society. Blacker also asserts that
the district court failed to appreciate Blacker’s age, autism diagnosis, and mental health issues
when it imposed sentence. In response, the State argues that the court’s primary consideration in
sentencing is the good order and protection of society. The State emphasizes that the district court
considered all the testimony and evidence, including evidence that this was a random violent
offense on a stranger in broad daylight. Moreover, the State asserts that the district court was well-
aware of Blacker’s various diagnoses, expressly recognized the treatment options and arguments
of counsel and, in its discretion, fashioned his sentence accordingly. Blacker has shown no error.
       The objectives of sentencing are well established in Idaho: (1) protection of society;
(2) deterrence of the individual and the public generally; (3) possibility of rehabilitation; and
(4) punishment or retribution for wrongdoing. State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707,
710 (Ct. App. 1982). The primary consideration is, and presumptively always will be, the good
order and protection of society. All other factors are, and must be, subservient to that end. State
v. Hunnel, 125 Idaho 623, 627, 873 P.2d 877, 881 (1994). A sentence need not serve all the

                                                  5
sentencing goals or weigh each one equally. State v. Dushkin, 124 Idaho 184, 186, 857 P.2d 663,
665 (Ct. App. 1993). Because Blacker’s sentence falls within statutory limits, he has the burden
to show that the sentence, in light of the governing criteria, is excessive under any reasonable view
of the facts. State v. Strand, 137 Idaho 457, 460, 50 P.3d 472, 475 (2002).
       Blacker argues that his mental health concerns and potential for rehabilitation favored a
lesser sentence and, particularly, a blended sentence. Blacker focused his arguments at sentencing
on his various diagnoses, including a relatively new autism diagnosis, and available treatment
options in facilities outside of or in addition to adult incarceration. The district court recognized
and addressed the various diagnoses and recommendations for treatment contained in the
sentencing materials and presented by Blacker.         The district court also acknowledged the
significant and long-lasting impact Blacker’s attack has on the victim.          The district court
considered that the primary objective of sentencing is protecting society, along with the related
goals of deterrence, rehabilitation, or retribution. Toohill, 103 Idaho at 568, 650 P.2d at 710. The
district court, in its discretion, weighed the factors as supported by the evidence. Blacker’s
argument asks this Court to reweigh the evidence and assign a greater weight to his treatment and
rehabilitative potential. We will not do so. Our role is limited to determining whether reasonable
minds could reach the same conclusions as the district court. State v. Biggs, 168 Idaho 112, 116,
480 P.3d 150, 154 (Ct. App. 2020). It is well-established that appellate courts in Idaho do not
reweigh evidence. State v. Doe, 144 Idaho 839, 842, 172 P.3d 1114, 1117 (2007).
       The district court found that this was an extremely violent crime and a significant crime
for a first-time offender. After considering the Toohill factors, weighing both mitigating and
aggravating factors, considering the recommendations for inpatient treatment, including the option
of imposing a blended sentence, the court ultimately concluded that a prison sentence is necessary
to protect society. Blacker has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in
fashioning his sentence.
C.     Rule 35(b) Motion
       Blacker argues that the district court abused its discretion when it denied his I.C.R. 35(b)
motion for reduction of sentence. In his motion, Blacker asserted that, since his incarceration, he
has spent time in solitary confinement in adult prison due to his age and has had medications
withheld, which he argued was not contemplated by the district court at sentencing. He asked the
district court to allow him to serve his sentence in a long-term, lock-down treatment facility that

                                                 6
includes juveniles or reconsider imposing a blended sentence. The State argues the district court
was aware of the circumstances surrounding Blacker’s confinement at the time of sentencing and
did not err in denying Blacker’s motion.
       A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35(b) is essentially a plea for leniency,
addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d
23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In presenting
a Rule 35(b) motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of new or
additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the motion. State
v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). A court may abuse its discretion if it
unreasonably refuses to consider relevant evidence or otherwise unduly limits the information
considered. State v. Bayles, 131 Idaho 624, 626-27, 962 P.2d 395, 397-98 (Ct. App. 1998). In
conducting our review of the grant or denial of a Rule 35(b) motion, we consider the entire record
and apply the same criteria used for determining the reasonableness of the original sentence. State
v. Forde, 113 Idaho 21, 22, 740 P.2d 63, 64 (Ct. App. 1987).
       Despite being aware of other options, at the time of sentencing, the district court expressly
determined that Blacker should be incarcerated in an adult facility. The possibility that Blacker
would experience difficulties as a juvenile in an adult facility was factored into the district court’s
analysis at the time of sentencing. The district court specifically stated:
       And I recognize those mitigating factors I said, that I think prison is going to be
       hard for you. I think prison may not give you the kind of treatment that you need,
       and there could be issues. . . . And I’m not under any illusions . . . prison will be
       all great. But it is where you have to go.
In denying Blacker’s Rule 35(b) motion, the district court noted that it had contemplated the
difficulties Blacker might face as a juvenile housed in an adult facility, but nonetheless the severity
of his crime and the danger he posed to the community justified a prison sentence. That Blacker’s
Rule 35(b) motion pointed out specific hardships associated with his incarceration did not change
the district court’s analysis or conclusion regarding the appropriate sentence. Blacker has failed
to show that the district court abused its discretion by denying his Rule 35(b) motion.
                                                 IV.
                                           CONCLUSION
       The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing Blacker’s sentence. In addition,
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Blacker’s I.C.R. 35(b) motion for

                                                  7
reduction of sentence. Therefore, Blacker’s sentence and the order denying Blacker’s I.C.R. 35(b)
motion are affirmed.
       Chief Judge LORELLO and Judge HUSKEY CONCUR.

                                               8