50731 State v. Jordan

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 50730/50731

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: December 6, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
WILLIAM HENRY JORDAN, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonner
County. Hon. Lamont C. Berecz, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and determinate term of ten years for failure to register as
a sex offender in Docket No. 50730, affirmed; judgment of conviction and unified,
consecutive term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of one and
one-half years, for felony injury to a child in Docket No. 50731, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kale D. Gans, Deputy Attorney General,
Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
This appeal involves two consolidated cases. In Docket No. 50730, William Henry Jordan
was found guilty of failure to register as a sex offender. Idaho Code § 18-8307. The district court
sentenced Jordan to a determinate term of ten years. In Docket No. 50731, Jordan pled guilty to
felony injury to a child. I.C. § 18-1501(1). The district court sentenced Jordan to a unified term
of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of one and one-half years. This sentence was
ordered to be served consecutively to the sentence in Docket No. 50730. Jordan appeals, arguing
that his sentences are excessive.

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 records in these cases, we cannot say
that the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Jordan’s judgments of conviction and
sentences are affirmed.

2