State of Idaho v. Robert James Green

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50626

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: October 16, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ROBERT JAMES GREEN, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Kootenai County. Hon. Richard S. Christensen, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent, unified sentences of ten years, with
minimum periods of confinement of four years, for three counts of aggravated
assault on a police officer and concurrent, unified term of five years, with a
minimum period of confinement of three years, for threatening violence on school
grounds, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, 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
Robert James Green was found guilty of three counts of aggravated assault on a police
officer (I.C. § 18-901, 18-905, and 18-915(1)(b)) and threatening violence on school grounds
(I.C. § 18-3302I(1)(b)). The district court sentenced Green to unified terms of ten years, a with
minimum periods of confinement of four years, for the three counts of aggravated assault on a
peace officer and a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of three

1
years, for threatening violence upon school grounds. The district court ordered that Green’s
sentences be served concurrently.1 Green filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied.
Green appeals, arguing that his sentences are excessive and that the district court should have
retained jurisdiction.
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).
The primary purpose of a district court retaining jurisdiction is to enable the court to obtain
additional information regarding whether the defendant has sufficient rehabilitative potential and
is suitable for probation. State v. Jones, 141 Idaho 673, 677, 115 P.3d 764, 768 (Ct. App. 2005).
Probation is the ultimate goal of retained jurisdiction. Id. There can be no abuse of discretion in
declining to retain jurisdiction if the district court has sufficient evidence before it to conclude that
the defendant is not a suitable candidate for probation. Id. The goal of probation is to foster the
probationer’s rehabilitation while protecting public safety. State v. Cheatham, 159 Idaho 856, 858,
367 P.3d 251, 253 (Ct. App. 2016). A decision to deny probation will not be deemed an abuse of
discretion if it is consistent with the criteria articulated in I.C. § 19-2521.
Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that
the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Green’s judgment of conviction and sentences
are affirmed.

1
Green was also charged with and found guilty of use of a deadly weapon. However, the
judgment of conviction and Green’s sentencing does not include this charge.

2