Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. Jenkins
Citations: 667 P.2d 269; 105 Idaho 166; 1983 Ida. App. LEXIS 244Docket: 14834
Court: Idaho Court of Appeals; July 26, 1983; Idaho; State Appellate Court
Lawrence James Jenkins was convicted of second degree murder for killing a man outside a Twin Falls tavern and sentenced to a maximum of twenty-five years in custody. Jenkins appealed his sentence as excessive, but the court affirmed it, noting the district judge did not provide reasons for the sentence on record. The court referenced its prior ruling in State v. Tisdale, which mandated that reasons for felony sentences be stated on record, but clarified that this ruling was not applicable since Jenkins' sentence was imposed before Tisdale was announced and the lack of stated reasons was not raised as an issue in his appeal. In addressing the appeal, the court indicated it would consider one-third of the indeterminate sentence, equating to approximately eight years and four months, as the measure of confinement for review purposes. This measure is not a prediction of parole timing but serves as a guideline for assessing indeterminate sentences. Idaho Code § 20-223 stipulates that inmates must serve either five years or one-third of their sentence, whichever is less, before becoming eligible for parole. The court acknowledged its prior decision in State v. Pettit, which applied the five-year minimum for a similar case but opted to reconsider the one-third measure in Jenkins' case. The court concluded that the one-third measure is relevant for appellate review, as it accounts for variances in the lengths of indeterminate sentences, thereby avoiding a uniform treatment of all sentences regardless of their length. Consequently, the court decided to apply the one-third measure of confinement for appellate review of indeterminate sentences under § 20-223. The methodology for sentence review established in Pettit has been modified. The facts of the case compel affirmation of Jenkins' sentence, which involved a senseless killing. Jenkins arrived at a tavern armed with two guns, seeking confrontation, but instead shot another patron after being provoked by remarks. He later claimed to have no memory of the shooting, suggesting possible drugging, but provided no specific evidence to support this. Jenkins, aged forty-five, had a history of unemployment, alcohol abuse, and over two decades of offenses related to alcohol and firearms. His case marked the first instance of such a combination resulting in violence. Although he expressed remorse, the district judge considered this when opting for an indeterminate sentence. Second-degree murder carries a potential life sentence under I.C. § 18-4004. The court referenced Toohill, stating that a sentence within statutory limits is not excessive unless it surpasses what is necessary for societal protection and the goals of retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The facts justify a minimum confinement of eight years and four months, viewed as one-third of the potential sentence. Jenkins' actions posed a serious threat to public safety, necessitating protection from such behavior. The case underscores society's interest in retribution for the loss of life and the need for deterrence against violent crimes. The district court's sentence is affirmed, with concurrence from WALTERS, C.J. and SWANSTROM, J.