Opinion
51477
11-27-2024
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MILO MICHAEL JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, 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UNPUBLISHED OPINION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 Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Gooding County. Hon. Rosemary Emory, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, for sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen years, affirmed.
Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Raul R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge; and TRIBE, Judge
PER CURIAM
Milo Michael Johnson pled guilty to sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen years. I.C. § 18-1506. The district court sentenced Johnson to a unified term of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years. Johnson filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Johnson appeals, arguing 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, Johnson's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.