State of Idaho v. Tyrell Howell

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52981

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 31, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
TYRELL HOWELL, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Cassia
County. Hon. Blaine Cannon, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent, unified sentences of twenty-five years,
with minimum periods of confinement of five years, for two counts of sexual
exploitation of a child, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender; Katherine C. Ball and Michaela Lasher, University of
Idaho Legal Aid Clinic, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before TRIBE, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Tyrell Howell pled guilty to two counts of sexual exploitation of a child. I.C. § 18-
1507(2)(d). In exchange for his guilty pleas, additional charges were dismissed. The district court
sentenced Howell to concurrent, unified terms of twenty-five years, with minimum periods of
confinement of five years. Howell 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

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

2