State of Idaho v. Javier Franco Ferrer

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 49170

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: June 3, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JAVIER FRANCO FERRER, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Patrick J. Miller, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of thirty years, with a minimum period
of confinement of twenty years, for lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen years
and concurrent, unified sentence of twenty-five years, with a minimum period of
confinement of twenty years, for sexual abuse of a child under sixteen years,
affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Javier Franco Ferrer was found guilty of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen years,
I.C. § 18-1508, and sexual abuse of a child under sixteen years, I.C. § 18-1506. The district court
sentenced Ferrer to a unified term of thirty years, with a minimum period of confinement of twenty
years, for lewd conduct with a minor and a concurrent, unified term of twenty-five years, with a
minimum period of confinement of twenty years, for sexual abuse of a minor. Ferrer filed an

1
I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Ferrer appeals, arguing 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
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, Ferrer’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.

2