51919/51920/51921 State v. King

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 51918/51919/51920/51921

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: September 2, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
BOBBY JACK KING, JR., ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Elmore County. Hon. Theodore J. Fleming, District Judge.

Judgments of conviction and aggregate sentences of thirty years with a minimum
period of confinement of fifteen years for enticing of children over the internet,
lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen, intimidating a witness, and battery upon
a law enforcement officer including misdemeanor battery, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A. Heffner, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM
In these consolidated appeals, Bobby Jack King, Jr. pled guilty to enticing of children over
the internet, Idaho Code § 18-1509A; lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen, I.C. § 18-1508;
intimidating, impeding, or preventing the attendance of a witness, I.C. § 18-2604; battery upon a
law enforcement officer and battery (misdemeanor), I.C. §§ 18-915(3)(b), 18-903(a) and/or (b).
In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed
sentences totaling thirty years with fifteen years determinate. King appeals, contending that his
sentences are excessive.

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 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 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. Therefore, King’s judgments of conviction and sentences
are affirmed.

2