State of Idaho v. Jeffery Alan Battram

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50439

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: September 4, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JEFFERY ALAN BATTRAM, ) 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. Peter G. Barton, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum
period of confinement of ten years, and concurrent unified sentence of fifteen years,
with a minimum period of confinement of five years, for two counts of sexual
battery of a minor child sixteen or seventeen years of age, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, 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
Jeffery Alan Battram was found guilty of two counts of sexual battery of a minor child
sixteen or seventeen years of age. I.C. § 18-1508A. The district court sentenced Battram to a
unified term of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years, for one count
of sexual battery of a minor child sixteen or seventeen years and a concurrent unified term of

1
fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, for the second count. Battram
appeals, arguing that his sentences are excessive.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, Battram’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.

1
Battram was also found guilty of and sentenced for two misdemeanors. However, he does
not challenge those sentences on appeal.

2