State of Idaho v. Tyler Lee Morrell

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51978

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: April 7, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
TYLER LEE MORRELL, ) 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. Steven J. Hippler, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of confinement of three years, for aggravated battery, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

University of Idaho Legal Aid Clinic; Katherine Ball and Erin Howey, Boise, for
appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Amy J. Lavin, Deputy Attorney General,
Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Tyler Lee Morrell pled guilty to aggravated battery. Idaho Code §§ 18-903(a), -907(1)(a).
In exchange for his guilty plea, the State agreed not to file a sentencing enhancement. The district
court sentenced Morrell to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of
three years.1 Morrell appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive.

1
The district court ordered Morrell’s sentence to run concurrently with any of Morrell’s
other sentences currently being served.

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

2