State of Idaho v. Donte Tyreece Kane Edmo

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 53058

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 23, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
DONTE TYREECE KANE EDMO, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bingham County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period
of confinement of two years, for unlawful possession of a firearm, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Abigael E. Schulz, 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; GRATTON, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Donte Tyreece Kane Edmo pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm, Idaho Code
§ 18-3316. In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed including an
allegation that he is a persistent violator. The district court sentenced Edmo to a unified term of
five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years. 1 Edmo appeals, arguing that his
sentence is excessive.

1
This sentence was ordered to run consecutively to the sentences imposed in Edmo’s four
other cases.

1
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, Edmo’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2