State of Idaho v. Baylee Samuel Farrell

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50704

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: September 23, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
BAYLEE SAMUEL FARRELL, ) 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. Lynn G. Norton, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of forty years, with a minimum period
of confinement of ten years, for lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor under
sixteen and concurrent determinate sentence of five years for intimidating a
witness, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A. Heffner, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Baylee Samuel Farrell pled guilty to lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor under
sixteen, I.C. § 18-1508, and intimidating a witness, I.C. § 18-2604.1 In exchange for his guilty

1
The judgment of conviction incorrectly states that the intimidating a witness charge was
dismissed and only reflects his sentence for lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor. The district
court’s oral pronouncement indicates that Farrell was also sentenced for intimidation of a witness.
However, it is the oral pronouncement of sentence that is controlling. See State v. Allen, 144 Idaho

1
pleas, additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Farrell to a unified term of
forty years, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years, for lewd and lascivious conduct
with a minor under sixteen and a concurrent, determinate term of five years for intimidating a
witness. Farrell filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Farrell appeals, arguing
that his sentences are 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, Farrell’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.

875, 877-78, 172 P.3d 1150, 1152-53 (Ct. App. 2007). Therefore, we also review Farrell’s
judgment of conviction and sentence for intimidating a witness.

2