State of Idaho v. Nicholas Thomas Scott Branson

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50033

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: September 29, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
NICHOLAS THOMAS SCOTT ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
BRANSON, ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Kootenai County. John T. Mitchell, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified life sentence, with twenty-five years
determinate, for forcible sexual penetration by use of a foreign object, affirmed.

Nevin, Benjamin & McKay LLP; Dennis Benjamin, 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
Nicholas Thomas Scott Branson pled guilty to felony injury to child, Idaho Code § 18-
1501(1), and forcible sexual penetration by use of a foreign object, I.C. § 18-6608. The district
court imposed a ten-year determinate sentence for felony injury to child and a life sentence, with
twenty-five years determinate, for forcible penetration by use of a foreign object. Branson appeals,
contending that his sentence for forcible penetration by use of a foreign object is unreasonable
because it is longer than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing.
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

1
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, Branson’s judgment of conviction and sentence
for forcible penetration by use of foreign object are affirmed.

2