From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Camacho-Montoya

Court of Appeals of Idaho
Mar 28, 2023
No. 49677 (Idaho Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2023)

Opinion

49677

03-28-2023

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CECILIO ELIUT CAMACHO-MONTOYA, Defendant-Appellant.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Raul R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, 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UNPUBLISHED OPINION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 unified sentence of fifteen years with seven and one-half years determinate for vehicular manslaughter, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raul R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

Before GRATTON, Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Cecilio Eliut Camacho-Montoya pled guilty to one count of vehicular manslaughter, Idaho Code § 18-4006(3)(b). The district court imposed a unified sentence of fifteen years with seven and one-half years determinate. Camacho-Montoya appeals, contending that his 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, 1014-15 (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, Camacho-Montoya's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Camacho-Montoya

Court of Appeals of Idaho
Mar 28, 2023
No. 49677 (Idaho Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2023)
Case details for

State v. Camacho-Montoya

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CECILIO ELIUT CAMACHO-MONTOYA…

Court:Court of Appeals of Idaho

Date published: Mar 28, 2023

Citations

No. 49677 (Idaho Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2023)