State of Idaho v. Levi Benjamin Popplewell

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50959

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 22, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
LEVI BENJAMIN POPPLEWELL, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Jerome
County. Hon. Rosemary Emory, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent, unified sentences of twenty years, with
minimum periods of confinement of four years, for lewd conduct with a minor
under sixteen and sexual abuse of a child under sixteen, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Levi Benjamin Popplewell pled guilty to lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen, I.C.
§ 15-1508, and sexual abuse of a child, I.C. § 18-1506. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional
charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Popplewell to concurrent, unified terms of
twenty years, with minimum periods of confinement of four years, to run consecutively to an
unrelated sentence. Popplewell 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, Popplewell’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.

2