State of Idaho v. Benjamin John Millar

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50377

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: October 30, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
BENJAMIN JOHN MILLAR, ) 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. Jason D. Scott, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of confinement of one year, for felony domestic violence or battery, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Jacob L. Westerfield,
Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM
Benjamin John Millar pled guilty to an amended charge of felony domestic violence or
battery. I.C. §§ 18-918(2) and 18-903. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were
dismissed and other unrelated charges were reduced from felonies to misdemeanors. The district
court sentenced Millar to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of
one year. Millar 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

1
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, Millar’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

2