State of Idaho v. Raul Alexander Cuevas

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52181

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: February 6, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
RAUL ALEXANDER CUEVAS, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Jonathan Medema, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of confinement of four years, for second degree murder with an enhancement for
use of a deadly weapon, 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 LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Raul Alexander Cuevas was found guilty of second degree murder (Idaho Code
§§ 18-4001, -4002, -4003(g)) with an enhancement for use of a deadly weapon (I.C. § 19-2520).
The district court sentenced Cuevas to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of
confinement of four years. Cuevas 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);

1
State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the
length o 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, Cuevas’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2