State v. Patrick James Bailey
161 Idaho 887
| Idaho | 2017Background
- Defendant Patrick J. Bailey pled guilty to one count of lewd conduct with a child under sixteen for repeatedly sexually molesting his severely autistic ten‑year‑old daughter, who could not speak full sentences or report abuse.
- Mother discovered Defendant atop the child in a sexual act; Defendant admitted four prior incidents and described five total incidents in evaluations/interviews.
- At sentencing the district court imposed life with seven years fixed (balance indeterminate); Defendant moved under I.C.R. 35(b) for reduction and retention of jurisdiction—motion denied.
- District court emphasized premeditation, opportunistic/predatory behavior (incidents occurred when other household members were away), the victim’s extreme vulnerability, and the need for punishment and deterrence over rehabilitation.
- Psychosexual evaluation rated Defendant moderate‑low risk (Static‑99R/Stable 2007 combined), but the court questioned those tools and credited Mother’s testimony about the victim’s impairment and trauma.
- Defendant appealed, arguing the court relied on erroneous factual findings and abused its sentencing discretion in denying the Rule 35(b) motion and imposing an indeterminate life term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Bailey) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court based sentence on clearly erroneous factual findings | Court relied on credible testimony and presentence report; factual determinations supported sentencing | Court misstated facts (e.g., claimed Bailey lied about passing out, found grooming/predation, assumed more than five incidents, said no hope for rehabilitation, rejected risk tools) | No. Court’s credibility determinations and factual inferences were supported by record and not clearly erroneous |
| Whether conduct was predatory/grooming versus opportunistic | Conduct was predatory/premeditated because incidents occurred when others were away; consistent with common law meaning of predatory | Expert characterized offender as "opportunistic" and testified no specific grooming evidence | Court’s characterization as predatory/opportunistic was reasonable; expert distinguished impulsive vs opportunistic, not predatory; no error |
| Whether court improperly discounted actuarial risk assessments | State relied on objective evidence of conduct and victim vulnerability to prioritize protection/deterrence over actuarial scores | Bailey argued Static‑99R/Stable2007 showed moderate‑low risk and amenability to treatment, so life indeterminate was excessive | Court may weigh sentencing objectives differently; rejecting risk instruments as dispositive was within discretion given offense facts |
| Whether denial of Rule 35(b) and refusal to retain jurisdiction was an abuse of discretion | Protection of public, deterrence and punishment outweighed rehabilitation; retention would not be appropriate where probation not likely | Bailey sought retained jurisdiction and less severe disposition relying on mitigation and treatment amenability | No abuse. Court reasonably prioritized punishment/deterrence and properly denied Rule 35(b) relief |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McIntosh, 160 Idaho 1, 368 P.3d 621 (discretionary‑sentence review standard)
- State v. Hooper, 119 Idaho 606, 809 P.2d 467 (requirement that sentencing court consider facts necessary for reasoned discretion)
- State v. Jimenez, 160 Idaho 540, 376 P.3d 744 (primary objective of sentencing is protection of society)
- State v. Moore, 131 Idaho 814, 965 P.2d 174 (court may prioritize punishment/deterrence over rehabilitation)
- State v. Alberts, 124 Idaho 489, 861 P.2d 59 (Rule 35 procedural context; appeal from sentence and Rule 35 similar)
- State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 170 P.3d 387 (presumption regarding fixed portion of sentence when reviewing discretion)