State of Idaho v. Allen Wayne Simons

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52329

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 4, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ALLEN WAYNE SIMONS, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon
County. Hon. Thomas W. Whitney, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of two years, with a minimum period
of confinement of six months, for intimidating, impeding or influencing the
attendance of a witness, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, 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; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Allen Wayne Simons was found guilty of intimidating, impeding, or influencing the
attendance of a witness. I.C. § 18-2604. The district court sentenced Simons to a unified term of
two years, with a minimum period of confinement of six months. Simons appeals, arguing that
his sentence is excessive and that the district court should have placed him on probation.
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-

1
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.
The goal of probation is to foster the probationer’s rehabilitation while protecting public
safety. State v. Cheatham, 159 Idaho 856, 858, 367 P.3d 251, 253 (Ct. App. 2016). A decision to
deny probation will not be deemed an abuse of discretion if it is consistent with the criteria
articulated in I.C. § 19-2521. The record in this case shows that the district court properly
considered the information before it and determined that probation was not appropriate.
Therefore, Simons’ judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

2