State v. Soto

1
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 53019
STATE OF IDAHO,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
RAFAEL SOTO,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Filed: October 14, 2026
Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
OPINION AND SHALL NOT
BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin
Falls County. Hon. John K. Butler, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum
period of confinement of five years for felony intimidating, influencing, impeding,
or deterring a witness from testifying and an enhancement for being a persistent
violator of the law, affirmed.
Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jacob L. Westerfield, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________
Before TRIBE, Chief Judge; FLEMING, Judge
and PETTY, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Rafael Soto was found guilty of felony intimidating, influencing, impeding, or deterring a
witness from testifying (Idaho Code § 18-2604) and of being a persistent violator (I.C. § 19-2514).
The district court sentenced Soto to a unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of
confinement of five years. Soto 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

2
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, Soto’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.