State of Idaho v. Juan Carlos Fuentes-Pina

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52196

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: August 18, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JUAN CARLOS FUENTES-PINA, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin
Falls County. Hon. Benjamin J. Cluff, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum
period of confinement of seven years, for possession of a controlled substance with
the intent to deliver and being a persistent violator, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Juan Carlos Fuentes-Pina was found guilty of possession of a controlled substance with the
intent to deliver. I.C. § 37-2732(a)(1)(A). Thereafter, Fuentes-Pina admitted to being a persistent
violator of the law. I.C. § 19-2514. The district court sentenced Fuentes-Pina to a unified term of
twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of seven years. Fuentes-Pina 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

1
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, Fuentes-Pina’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

2