State of Idaho v. Marc Raymond Zuniga, Jr

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50122

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: November 6, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
MARC RAYMOND ZUNIGA, JR., ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon
County. Hon. Brent L. Whiting, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and aggregate sentence of ten years, with a minimum
period of incarceration of four years, for domestic battery or assault in the
presentence of a child and attempted strangulation, with a persistent violator
enhancement, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis,
Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before LORELLO, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
and HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Marc Raymond Zuniga, Jr. was found guilty of felony domestic battery or assault in the
presence of a child, Idaho Code § 18-918(4), felony attempted strangulation, I.C. § 18-923, and
misdemeanor resisting and obstructing an officer, I.C. § 18-705. Then, Zuniga entered a guilty
plea to a persistent violation enhancement, I.C. § 19-2514. The district court imposed a unified
sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of incarceration of four years, for domestic battery
or assault in the presence of a child with the persistent violation enhancement, and a unified
sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of incarceration of four years, for attempted

1
strangulation with a persistent violator enhancement. The sentences were ordered to run
concurrently with one another. The district court imposed 203 days of jail for resisting and
obstructing an officer with credit for time served. Zuniga appeals, contending that his felony
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, Zuniga’s judgment of conviction and sentences
are affirmed.

2