State v. Hatch

• Docket Number: 50871
• Decision Date: 24 January 2024
• Parties: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOHNATHAN RILEY HATCH, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals

1

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JOHNATHAN RILEY HATCH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 50871

Court of Appeals of Idaho

January 24, 2024

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bingham County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for aggravated battery, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM

Johnathan Riley Hatch pled guilty to aggravated battery, Idaho Code § 18-907(1)(a). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a unified term of ten years with two years determinate. Hatch filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Hatch appeals arguing that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence and by denying his I.C.R. 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.

2

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 record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Hatch's 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); ...