State of Idaho v. James Rodney Shaff

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50529

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: February 13, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JAMES RODNEY SHAFF, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin
Falls County. Hon. Roger B. Harris, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified concurrent life sentences, with a minimum
period of incarceration of fifteen years, for lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen
and sexual battery of a minor child sixteen or seventeen years of age, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, 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 LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
James Rodney Shaff was found guilty of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen, Idaho
Code § 18-1508, sexual battery of a minor child sixteen or seventeen years of age, I.C. § 18-
1508A(1)(a), and misdemeanor dispensing to a minor, I.C. § 23-603. For each felony, the district
court imposed a concurrent, unified life sentence, with a minimum period of incarceration of
fifteen years. For the misdemeanor, the district court imposed thirty days of jail. The sentences
were ordered to run concurrently. Shaff 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, Shaff’s judgment of conviction and sentences
are affirmed.

2