State of Idaho v. Nanyow Clemente Sanchez

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52566

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: December 19, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
NANYOW CLEMENTE SANCHEZ, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bingham County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of incarceration of three years, for domestic battery with traumatic injury, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM
Nanyow Clemente Sanchez pleaded guilty to domestic battery with traumatic injury, Idaho
Code § 18-918(2). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district
court imposed a unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of incarceration of three
years. Sanchez appeals, asserting the district court abused its discretion by failing to place Sanchez
on probation.1

1
Sanchez filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Sanchez
does not challenge the denial of his I.C.R. 35 motion on appeal.
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). That discretion includes
the trial court’s decision regarding whether a defendant should be placed on probation and whether
to retain jurisdiction. I.C. § 19-2601(3), (4); State v. Reber, 138 Idaho 275, 278, 61 P.3d 632, 635
(Ct. App. 2002); State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 205-06, 786 P.2d 594, 596-97 (Ct. App. 1990). The
record in this case shows that the district court properly considered the information before it and
determined that probation was not appropriate.
Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that
the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Sanchez’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2