50652/50653 State v. Wilkins

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 50651/50652/50653

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: July 31, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JUSTIN AARON WILKINS ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Jason D. Scott, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum
period of incarceration of ten years, for aggravated battery, an indeterminate
fifteen-year sentence for aggravated strangulation; and a five-year determinate
sentence for intimidating, impeding, influencing, or preventing the attendance of a
witness, affirmed; order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

This case involves three consolidated cases. In Docket No. 50651 (CR01-22-29782), Justin
Aaron Wilkins pled guilty to felony aggravated battery, I.C. §§ 18-903(a), 18-907(1)(a), and 19-
2520F, and the district court imposed a unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period
of incarceration of ten years, to run consecutively to the sentence imposed in another case (CR01-
18-20345). In Docket No. 50652 (CR01-22-33635), Wilkins pled guilty to felony attempted
strangulation, I.C. § 18-923, and the district court imposed an indeterminate sentence of fifteen

1
years to run consecutively to the sentence imposed in Docket No. 50651 (CR01-22-29782). In
Docket No. 50653 (CR01-22-36805), Wilkins pled guilty to intimidating, impeding, influencing,
or preventing the attendance of a witness, I.C. §§ 18-2604, 19-2520F, and the district court
imposed a determinate sentence of five years to run consecutively to the sentence imposed in a
separate case (CR01-18-20345) but concurrently with the sentence imposed in Docket No. 50651
(CR01-22-29782). Wilkins filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion requesting the court reduce
the determinate ten-year portion of his sentence; the district court denied the motion. Wilkins
appeals arguing the district court imposed an excessive aggregate sentence in light of the
mitigating factors, including those facts presented with his Rule 35 motion.
Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the
factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established. See
State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v.
Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho
565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the length of a sentence, we
consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391
(2007). Our role is limited to determining whether reasonable minds could reach the same
conclusion as the district court. State v. Biggs, 168 Idaho 112, 116, 480 P.3d 150, 154 (Ct. App.
2020). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the records in these cases, we cannot say
that the district court abused its discretion.
Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Wilkins’ Rule 35 motion. A
motion for reduction of sentence under Rule 35 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 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). Upon review of the records, including any new information
submitted with Wilkins’ Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.
Therefore, Wilkins’ judgments of conviction and sentences, and the district court’s order
denying Wilkins’ Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.

2