State of Idaho v. Eleasar Pedrosa Frakes

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52967

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 18, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ELEASAR PEDROSA FRAKES, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Nancy A. Baskin, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of four and one-half years, with a
minimum period of confinement of one and one-half years, for propelling bodily
fluids or waste at certain persons, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, 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
Eleasar Pedrosa Frakes pled guilty to propelling bodily fluids or waste at certain persons,
Idaho Code §§ 18-915B, 19-2520F. In exchange for his guilty plea, an allegation that he is a
persistent violator was dismissed. The district court sentenced Frakes to a unified term of four and
one-half years, with a minimum period of confinement of one and one-half years.1 Frakes appeals,
arguing that his sentence is excessive.

1
The district court ordered this sentence to run consecutively to “all other holds.”

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, Frakes’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2