State of Idaho v. Justin Aaron Ray Nicholson

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51885

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 31, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JUSTIN AARON RAY NICHOLSON, ) 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. Joseph W. Borton, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period
of confinement of one year, for battery on a law enforcement officer, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, 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
Justin Aaron Ray Nicholson entered an Alford1 plea to battery on a law enforcement officer,
Idaho Code § 18-915(3)(a).2 In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed.
The district court imposed a unified term of five years with one year determinate, to be served
consecutively to any other sentences, with credit for time served. Nicholson appeals, contending
that his sentence is excessive.

1
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).
2
Nicholson also pled guilty to misdemeanor resisting and obstructing in a separate case
which is not at issue in this 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). 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, Nicholson’s judgment of conviction and
sentence are affirmed.

2