State of Idaho v. Ismael Alizandro Aceves

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50213

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: August 21, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ISMAEL ALIZANDRO ACEVES, ) 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. Steven J. Hippler, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fourteen years, with a minimum
period of confinement of four and one-half years, for one count of grand theft and
an indeterminate term of ten years for one count of grand theft, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, 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 LORELLO, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
and HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Ismael Alizandro Aceves pled guilty to two counts of grand theft, Idaho Code §§ 18-
2403(1), 18-2407(1)(b), 18-2409. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were
dismissed. The district court imposed a unified term of fourteen years with four and one-half
years determinate for Count I and a term of ten years indeterminate for Count II. The district
court also ordered the sentences to be served consecutively to each other as well as consecutively
to the sentences in an unrelated case. Aceves appeals, contending that his sentences are
excessive.

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 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, Aceves’s judgment of conviction and
sentences are affirmed.

2