State of Idaho v. Melvin Eugene Monroe, Jr

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51397

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: January 28, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
MELVIN EUGENE MONROE, JR., ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, State of Idaho, Idaho
County. Hon. Adam H. Green, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified term of thirty years, with a minimum period of
confinement of fifteen years, for lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A Coster, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Melvin Eugene Monroe, Jr. pled guilty to lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen. Idaho
Code § 18-1508. In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district
court sentenced Monroe to a unified term of thirty years, with a minimum period of confinement
of fifteen years. Monroe appeals, arguing 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);

1
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, Monroe’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2