State of Idaho v. Michael Anthony Aquino, II

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 49234

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 1, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
MICHAEL ANTHONY AQUINO, II, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Kootenai County. Hon. Cynthia K.C. Meyer, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent, unified sentences of fifteen years, with
minimum periods of confinement of four years, for two counts of sexual abuse of a
child under sixteen and being a persistent violator, affirmed; order denying
I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM
Michael Anthony Aquino, II, was found guilty of two counts of sexual abuse of a minor
under sixteen, I.C. § 18-1506(1)(b), and was found to be a persistent violator, I.C. § 19-2514. The
district court sentenced Aquino to concurrent, unified terms of fifteen years, with minimum periods
of confinement of four years. Aquino filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied.
Aquino appeals, arguing that his sentences are excessive and that the district court erred in denying
his Rule 35 motion for reduction of his sentences.

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. 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.
Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Aquino’s Rule 35 motion. A
motion for reduction of sentence under Rule 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, addressed to the
sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 23, 24 (2006); State
v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In presenting a Rule 35 motion,
the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of new or additional information
subsequently provided to the district court in support of the motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho
201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the record, including any new information
submitted with Aquino’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.
Therefore, Aquino’s judgment of conviction and sentences, and the district court’s order
denying Aquino’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.

2