State of Idaho v. Ahmed Mohammed Saad

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 49838

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 1, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
AHMED MOHAMMED SAAD, ) 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 consecutive life sentences with fifteen years
determinate for each of two counts of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen,
affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jacob L. Westerfield,
Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Andrew V. Wake, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and BRAILSFORD, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Ahmed Mohammed Saad pled guilty to two counts of lewd conduct with a minor under
sixteen, Idaho Code § 18-1508. In exchange for his guilty pleas, additional charges were
dismissed. The district court imposed consecutive life sentences with fifteen years determinate for
each count. Saad filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of his sentences, which
the district court denied. Saad appeals, contending that his aggregate 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

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, Saad’s judgment of conviction and aggregate
sentence are affirmed.

2