State of Idaho v. Zachariah Barker Thomas

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52805

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 19, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ZACHARIAH BARKER THOMAS, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Elmore County. Hon. Theodore Fleming, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum
period of confinement of ten years, for battery with the intent to commit a serious
felony (lewd and lascivious conduct), 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 TRIBE, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
and HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Zachariah Barker Thomas entered an Alford1 plea to an amended charge of battery with the
intent to commit a serious felony (lewd and lascivious conduct), Idaho Code §§ 18-911, 18-1508.
The district court sentenced Barker Thomas to a unified term of twenty years, with a minimum

1
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).

1
period of confinement of ten years.2 Barker Thomas 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-
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, Barker Thomas’s judgment of conviction and
sentence are affirmed.

2
This sentence was ordered to run concurrently with any other sentence Barker Thomas was
currently serving.

2