State v. Grant

1
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 53384
STATE OF IDAHO,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
TY JAMES GRANT,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Filed: October 14, 2026
Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
OPINION AND SHALL NOT
BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Minidoka County. Hon. W. Reed Cotten, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum
period of confinement of seven years, for lewd conduct with a child under the age
of sixteen years, affirmed.
Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________
Before LORELLO, Judge; FLEMING, Judge
and PETTY, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Ty James Grant pled guilty to lewd conduct with a child under the age of sixteen years.
Idaho Code § 18-1508. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The
district court sentenced Grant to a unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum period of
confinement of seven years. Grant appeals, arguing that his 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
need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

2
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, Grant’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.