From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Ortiz

Court of Appeals of Idaho
Nov 26, 2024
No. 51815 (Idaho Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2024)

Opinion

51815

11-26-2024

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. AGUSTIN CHAVEZ ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kierra W. Mai, 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UNPUBLISHED OPINION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. Cynthia Yee-Wallace, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of thirty years, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years, for sexual exploitation of a child, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kierra W. Mai, 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; HUSKEY, Judge; and LORELLO, Judge

PER CURIAM

Agustin Chavez Ortiz pled guilty to sexual exploitation of a child. I.C. § 18-1507(2)(c). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Ortiz to a unified term of thirty years, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years. Ortiz 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, Ortiz's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Ortiz

Court of Appeals of Idaho
Nov 26, 2024
No. 51815 (Idaho Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2024)
Case details for

State v. Ortiz

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. AGUSTIN CHAVEZ ORTIZ…

Court:Court of Appeals of Idaho

Date published: Nov 26, 2024

Citations

No. 51815 (Idaho Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2024)