State v. Jensen
46 P.3d 536 · Idaho Court of Appeals · 2002
Facts
Jensen's husband left her and moved in with the victim and her daughter. Distraught, Jensen, a registered nurse, devised a plan to kill the victim by injecting her with a lethal dose of insulin. She enlisted her niece and her niece's ex-boyfriend to help. On September 9, 1999, Jensen and her accomplices entered the victim's apartment after Jensen's husband left for work. While an accomplice restrained the victim, Jensen injected her with insulin and methamphetamine. Jensen and her accomplices watched the victim suffer for approximately one hour, then fled, leaving the victim's three-year-old daughter alone with her dying mother. Jensen was arrested months later and charged with first degree murder.
Procedural history
Jensen was charged with first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, with the state seeking the death penalty. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Jensen pled guilty to first degree murder, and the state dismissed the conspiracy charge and withdrew its death penalty notice. Jensen was sentenced to a determinate life term in prison. She subsequently filed a Rule 35 motion for reduction of her sentence, which the district court denied, leading to this appeal.
Issue
Whether the fixed life sentence imposed upon Jensen's guilty plea to first degree murder was excessive and an abuse of discretion. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Jensen's Rule 35 motion for reduction of her sentence.
Holding
The court affirmed Jensen's judgment of conviction and fixed life sentence for first degree murder, finding no abuse of discretion. The court also affirmed the district court's order denying Jensen's Rule 35 motion, concluding she failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion.
Rule
An appellate review of a sentence is based on an abuse of discretion standard, requiring the appellant to show the sentence is unreasonable. A sentence of confinement is reasonable if necessary to protect society and achieve deterrence, rehabilitation, or retribution. An excessively harsh sentence is reviewed considering the nature of the offense, character of the offender, and public interest. A fixed life sentence is reasonable if the offense is so egregious it demands exceptionally severe retribution and deterrence, or if the offender utterly lacks rehabilitative potential. Denial of a Rule 35 motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion, requiring the defendant to show the original sentence was unduly severe or present new information.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.