State of Idaho v. Jose Fabrico Sanchez Vazquez

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52527

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 4, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JOSE FABRICO SANCHEZ ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
VAZQUEZ, ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon
County. Hon. Randall S. Grove, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum
period of confinement of five years, for lewd conduct with a child under sixteen,
affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kierra W. Mai, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Neil Paterson, Deputy Attorney General,
Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
Jose Fabrico Sanchez Vazquez pled guilty to lewd conduct with a child under sixteen,
Idaho Code § 18-1508. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The
district court imposed a unified term of twenty years with five years determinate. Sanchez
Vazquez appeals, contending the district court abused its discretion when it imposed his sentence
in light of substantial mitigating evidence. Specifically, he contends that the district court
disregarded the presumption in I.C. § 19-2521 favoring probation when it stated that, for certain
offenses, that presumption “becomes zero.”

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. The district court did not disregard the presumption of
probation based solely on Sanchez Vazquez’s crime. Instead, it considered all the evidence
presented, including the mitigating evidence, and determined that probation was not appropriate
in this case. Therefore, Sanchez Vazquez’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

2