State v. Schaeffer

• Decision Date: 21 September 2022
• Docket Number: 49287
• Parties: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROBERT CALVIN SCHAEFFER, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ROBERT CALVIN SCHAEFFER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 49287

Court of Appeals of Idaho

September 21, 2022

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

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

Judgment of conviction and concurrent, unified life sentences, with minimum periods of confinement of fifteen years, for two counts of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen and being a persistent violator, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentences, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

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

PER CURIAM

Robert Calvin Schaeffer was found guilty of two counts of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen. I.C. § 18-1508. Schaeffer then admitted to being a persistent violator. I.C. § 19-2514. The district court sentenced Schaeffer to concurrent, unified life terms, with minimum periods of confinement of fifteen years. Schaeffer filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Schaeffer appeals, arguing that his sentences are excessive and that the district court erred in denying his Rule 35 motion for reduction of his sentences.

1

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

Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Schaeffer's Rule 35 motion. A motion for reduction of...