State of Idaho v. Christopher Curtis Williams

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52071

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: December 17, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
CHRISTOPHER CURTIS WILLIAMS, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bonneville County. Hon. Michael J. Whyte, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and suspended, unified sentence of four years, with a
minimum period of confinement of two years, for malicious injury to property,
affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Christopher Curtis Williams pled guilty to malicious injury to property, Idaho Code
§ 18-7001. In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed.1 The district court
sentenced Williams to a unified term of four years, with a minimum period of confinement of two
years; however, the district court suspended the sentence and placed Williams on probation for
four years. Williams appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive.

1
Williams also agreed to plead guilty to another charge in another county and the State
agreed to dismiss two other cases in their entirety.

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, Williams’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2