Opinion
49550
02-02-2023
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ARON MATHEU HOLMQUIST, Defendant-Appellant.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason L. Westerfield, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Raúl 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UNPUBLISHED OPINION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. Peter G. Barton, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and concurrent determinate life sentences for two counts of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen, affirmed.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason L. Westerfield, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Before LORELLO, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge
PER CURIAM
Aron Matheu Holmquist pled guilty to two counts of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen years, Idaho Code § 18-1508. The district court imposed a concurrent determinate life sentence for each charge. Holmquist appeals, contending that his sentences are 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). A fixed life sentence may be deemed reasonable if the offense is so egregious that it demands an exceptionally severe measure of retribution and deterrence, or if the offender so utterly lacks rehabilitative potential that imprisonment for life is the only feasible means of protecting society. State v. Windom, 150 Idaho 873, 876, 253 P.3d 310, 313 (2011); see also State v. Eubank, 114 Idaho 635, 638, 759 P.2d 926, 929 (Ct. App. 1998).
Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion. Holmquist's admitted history of sexually abusing several children and the scope of conduct he pled guilty to in this case demonstrate the egregiousness of the offenses and support the sentences imposed. Therefore, Holmquist's judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.