State of Idaho v. James David Russell

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50499

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: November 29, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JAMES DAVID RUSSELL, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bonner County. Hon. Barbara A. Buchanan, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and determinate life sentence for second degree murder,
affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley,
Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Amy J. Lavin, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before LORELLO, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
and HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
James David Russell pled guilty to second degree murder, Idaho Code §§ 18-4001, 18-
4003. The district court imposed a determinate life sentence. Russell appeals, contending that
his sentence is excessive.
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 and
need not be repeated here. 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

1
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).
“To impose a fixed life sentence ‘requires a high degree of certainty that the perpetrator
could never be safely released back into society or that the nature of the offense requires that the
individual spend the rest of his life behind bars.’” State v. Windom, 150 Idaho 873, 876, 253
P.3d 310, 313 (2011) (quoting State v. Cross, 132 Idaho 667, 672, 978 P.2d 227, 232 (1999)).
In State v. Jackson, 130 Idaho 293, 294, 939 P.2d 1372, 1373 (1997), the Idaho Supreme Court
quoted the following language from this Court with its approval: “a fixed life sentence may be
deemed reasonable if the offense is so egregious that it demands an exceptionally
severe measure of retribution and deterrence . . . .” (quoting State v. Eubank, 114 Idaho 635,
638, 759 P.2d 926, 929 (Ct. App. 1988)).
Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that
the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Russell’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2