52054/52055 State v. Childers

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 52053/52054/52055

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: October 6, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
RONALD THURMAN CHILDERS, II, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Boundary County. Hon. Lamont C. Berecz, District Judge.

Judgments of conviction and aggregate, unified sentences of fifteen years, with a
minimum period of confinement of ten years, for enticing a child through the
internet or other communication device, 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 GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
In these consolidated appeals, Ronald Thurman Childers, II, pled guilty to three counts of
enticing a child through the internet or other communication device, Idaho Code § 18-1509A(1).
In exchange for his guilty pleas, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court imposed
an aggregate term of fifteen years with ten years determinate. Childers appeals, contending that
his sentences are 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, Childers’ judgments of conviction and sentences
are affirmed.

2