State of Idaho v. Ryan Alan Pugh

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52205

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: June 5, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
RYAN ALAN PUGH, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Madison County. Hon. Steven W. Boyce, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentence of eight and one-half
years with a minimum period of confinement of two and one-half years for
possession of child sexually exploitative material and unified sentence of twelve
and one-half years with a minimum period of confinement of two and one-half
years for distribution of child sexually exploitative material, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, 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; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Ryan Alan Pugh pled guilty to one count of possession of child sexually exploitative
material and one count of distribution of child sexually exploitative material, Idaho Code §§ 18-
1507(2)(a), 18-1507(2)(d). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed.
The district court imposed concurrent terms of eight and one-half years with two and one-half
years determinate for possession of child sexually exploitative material and twelve and one-half

1
years with two and one-half years determinate for distribution of child exploitative material.
Pugh appeals, contending 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
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, Pugh’s judgment of conviction and sentences
are affirmed.

2