State of Idaho v. Johnny Angel Guajardo

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51786

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 20, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JOHNNY ANGEL GUAJARDO, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Elmore County. Hon. Theodore Fleming, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of life, with a minimum period of
confinement of twenty-five years, for aggravated battery with a persistent violator
enhancement, affirmed.

Nevin, Benjamin & McKay LLP; Dennis Benjamin, 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
Johnny Angel Guajardo pled guilty to aggravated battery. Idaho Code §§ 18-903, 18-
907(1)(a). Guajardo admitted to an enhancement of being a persistent violator of the law.
I.C. § 19-2514. The district court sentenced Guajardo to a unified sentence of life, with a minimum
period of confinement of twenty-five years. Guajardo filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion,
which the district court denied. Guajardo appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive.1

1
Although Guajardo asserts he is appealing from the denial of his Rule 35 motion, the issue
statement in his brief relates only to his sentencing claim. Other than the statement in the

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

introduction, Guajardo’s brief does not challenge the denial of his Rule 35 motion, thus, we decline
to address it. See State v. Zichko, 129 Idaho 259, 263, 923 P.2d 966, 970 (1996) (holding a party
waives an issue on appeal if either authority or argument is lacking).

2