State v. Dobbs, 457 P.3d 854

Victim (L.T.), age 15, reported sexual acts by her uncle, Shane Lee Dobbs (age 38), including intercourse, after visiting his home. Mother reported the offense.
Dobbs was charged with lewd conduct with a minor under 16 and sexual abuse of a child; he pleaded guilty to lewd conduct and the State dismissed the other charge.
At sentencing the State recommended a unified 20-year sentence with 8 years fixed; defense recommended 7 years with 2 years fixed.
The district court imposed a unified 22-year sentence with 10 years fixed, plus costs, restitution, and a $5,000 civil penalty; Dobbs appealed.
On appeal Dobbs argued the court abused its discretion by referring to "deterring private vengeance" as a sentencing factor and that the overall sentence was excessive given mitigating factors.
The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding deterrence of private vengeance may be considered as part of punishment/retribution and that the sentence was not excessive under the facts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by referring to "deterring private vengeance" at sentencing	The State: reference to deterring private vengeance fits within the legitimate sentencing objective of punishment/retribution and the good order of society	Dobbs: referencing deterrence of private vengeance is improper and an abuse of discretion	Court: No abuse — deterrence of private retribution can be encompassed within punishment/retribution and the court did not base the sentence on it
Whether the 22-year (10 years fixed) sentence is excessive	The State: sentence justified by aggravating factors (criminal history, seriousness and duration of abuse, family relationship, parole status, risk to reoffend)	Dobbs: sentence excessive given mitigating factors (first sex offense, remorse, community support, moderate reoffense risk)	Court: Sentence not excessive; within statutory limits and reasonable under any rational view given the aggravating factors

State v. Miller, 151 Idaho 828 (2011) (sets abuse-of-discretion standard for appellate review of sentencing)
State v. Wersland, 125 Idaho 499 (1994) (courts may use alternative phrasing to articulate punishment/retribution objective)
State v. Campbell, 123 Idaho 922 (Ct. App. 1993) (recognizes suppression of private vengeance as a legitimate role of sentencing)
State v. Bailey, 161 Idaho 887 (2017) (identifies the four objectives of criminal punishment and primary focus on protection of society)
State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565 (1982) (primary consideration in sentencing is the good order and protection of society)
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) (U.S. Supreme Court discussion of retribution as a societal function in punishment)
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) (concerns about private self-help and need to channel retributive instincts through legal process)