State of Idaho v. Steven Joseph Rees

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51034

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: January 28, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
STEVEN JOSEPH REES, ) 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. Roger B. Harris, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of
confinement of three and one-half years, for burglary with a persistent violator
enhancement, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Steven Joseph Rees was found guilty of burglary.1 Idaho Code § 18-1401. Rees also
admitted to the persistent violator enhancement. I.C. § 19-2514. The district court sentenced Rees
to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of three and one-half years.

1
Rees was also found guilty of petit theft. Rees does not challenge this conviction or
sentence on appeal.

1
The district court ordered that Rees’s sentence run concurrently with the sentences in two
additional cases. Rees 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
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, Rees’s judgment of conviction and sentence are
affirmed.

2