Opinion
49838
05-01-2023
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. AHMED MOHAMMED SAAD, Defendant-Appellant.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jacob L. Westerfield, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Raul R. Labrador, Attorney General; Andrew V. Wake, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Steven J. Hippler, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and consecutive life sentences with fifteen years determinate for each of two counts of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen, affirmed.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jacob L. Westerfield, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Raul R. Labrador, Attorney General; Andrew V. Wake, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Before GRATTON, Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge
PER CURIAM
Ahmed Mohammed Saad pled guilty to two counts of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen, Idaho Code § 18-1508. In exchange for his guilty pleas, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed consecutive life sentences with fifteen years determinate for each count. Saad filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of his sentences, which the district court denied. Saad appeals, contending that his aggregate sentence is excessive.
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, 101415 (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, Saad's judgment of conviction and aggregate sentence are affirmed.