State of Idaho v. Annette Dee Reed

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51774

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 4, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ANNETTE DEE REED, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bannock County. Hon. Javier Gabiola, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum
period of confinement of ten years, for sexual battery committed by lewd or
lascivious conduct on a minor sixteen to seventeen years of age, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kierra W. Mai, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Annette Dee Reed pled guilty to sexual battery committed by lewd or lascivious conduct
on a minor sixteen to seventeen years of age. I.C. § 18-1508A(1)(a). In exchange for her guilty
plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Reed to a unified term of
twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years. Reed appeals, arguing that her
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, Reed’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

2