Court Opinion

ID: 9558945
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:19:20.286935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:40.453535
License: Public Domain

BAKES, Justice.
Defendant Stephen Bowcutt appeals his sentence, contending that the sentencing court abused its discretion.
On August 17, 1978, defendant was charged by complaint with one count of first degree burglary. He entered a plea of not guilty on September 1, 1978. On September 18, 1978, another complaint was filed charging defendant with six more counts of first degree burglary. He was subsequently bound over on four of those counts and pleaded not guilty. Later, he changed his plea to guilty on all five remaining counts of both informations. The district court ordered a presentence investigation. After a hearing the court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate period of incarceration not to exceed nine years on all five counts of both informations, all of which sentences were to run concurrently. The defendant appeals from those sentences.
The sentence imposed by the court below was well within the statutory maximum limit prescribed for the crime of first degree burglary. I.C. § 18-1403. Where the sentence imposed is within the statutory limits, an appellant has the burden of showing a clear abuse of discretion on the part of the sentencing court. State v. Seifart, 100 Idaho 321, 597 P.2d 44 (1979); State v. Chapa, 98 Idaho 54, 558 P.2d 83 (1976).
The defendant insists that the district court abused its sentencing discretion in four respects. First, defendant contends that the district judge harbored prejudice against the defendant because of his use of the public defender. The district court on several occasions voiced some concern about *763defendant’s ability to put up bond, but inability to retain private counsel. The district judge also informed the defendant that he may be subsequently liable to the county in a suit for reimbursement for the legal services of the public defender. We have reviewed the district judge’s statements and find neither error nor prejudice. Courts are required to conduct inquiries into a defendant’s need for public defense. I.C. § 19-854(a). While release on bail does not necessarily prevent a defendant from qualifying for public defense, I.C. § 19-854(b), a court may nonetheless consider it as a factor in making a determination of need. Finally, the court did not err in accurately informing the defendant of the possibility of a later suit by the county for reimbursement for the cost of legal assistance. I.C. § 19-858.
Secondly, defendant contends that the sentencing court erred in admitting the testimony of the state’s witnesses regarding the value of the merchandise taken during the burglary. The admission and consideration of such evidence was not error. A trial court has considerable latitude in admitting evidence pertinent to sentencing. State v. Ballard, 93 Idaho 355, 461 P.2d 250 (1969). See e. g., State v. Pierce, 100 Idaho 57, 593 P.2d 392 (1979). The nature and gravity of the offense are of course appropriate considerations for a sentencing court. See State v. Wolfe, 99 Idaho 382, 582 P.2d 728 (1978). Moreover, one of the objectives of criminal punishment is retribution. State v. Wolfe, supra; State v. Ogata, 95 Idaho 309, 508 P.2d 141 (1973); State v. Moore, 78 Idaho 359, 304 P.2d 1101 (1957).
Next, defendant takes issue with the trial court’s comparison of the defendant and his co-defendant. The defendant points to the fact that his co-defendant received a lesser sentence, and that the district court unfavorably portrayed the defendant as the leader and the co-defendant as the follower. However, the trial court’s characterization of the defendant as a leader finds support in the psychological evaluation found in the presentence investigation. Moreover, the mere fact that co-defendants are given disparate sentences for the same crime or crimes does not constitute an abuse of discretion on the part of the court imposing the sentences. State v. Seifart, 100 Idaho 321, 597 P.2d 44 (1979).
Finally, defendant contends that his sentence was excessive. We cannot conclude that the district court’s sentence constituted an abuse of discretion. Defendant pleaded guilty to a total of five first degree burglaries. The presentence report indicated that the defendant had a prior felony charge reduced to petit larceny, to which he pleaded guilty. At that time, he was given the opportunity to clear himself of past criminal activity. He denied any other criminal involvement, although only one month earlier he had committed one of the burglaries now comprising the subject matter of this appeal. Additionally, the defendant’s presentence report was in general unfavorable, as were portions of the testimony of witnesses testifying on his behalf.
In view of the foregoing, the court below did not abuse its discretion in sentencing the defendant. Affirmed.
DONALDSON, C. J., and SHEPARD, McFADDEN and BISTLINE, JJ., concur.