State of Idaho v. Michael Fernando Robayo Pulido

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52434

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: November 17, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
MICHAEL FERNANDO ROBAYO ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
PULIDO, ) 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 ten years, with a minimum period
of incarceration of two years, for grand theft, affirmed.

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

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

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

PER CURIAM
Michael Fernando Robayo Pulido pleaded guilty to one count of grand theft, Idaho Code
§§ 18-2403(1), -2407(1)(b), -2409, -204. In exchange for Robayo Pulido’s guilty plea, other
charges were dismissed and the State agreed to withhold the filing of additional charges. The
district court imposed a unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of incarceration of
two years. Robayo Pulido appeals, arguing the sentence imposed 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, Robayo Pulido’s judgment of conviction and
sentence are affirmed.

2