State of Idaho v. Rodrick Darell Burns

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50585

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: December 19, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
RODRICK DARELL BURNS, ) 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. Cynthia Yee-Wallace, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with ten years
determinate, for felony domestic battery, affirmed.

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

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

Before LORELLO, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
and HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Rodrick Darell Burns pled guilty to one count of felony domestic battery in the presence
of a child, Idaho Code §§ 18-918(2), -903(a), -918(4), and to two counts of misdemeanor battery,
I.C. § 18-903(a). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district
court imposed a unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of ten
years, for the felony domestic battery charge. The court ordered 180 days jail, with credit for time
served, for each of the misdemeanor battery charges. Burns appeals, contending that his sentence
is 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, Burns’ judgment of conviction and sentence are
affirmed.

2