State of Idaho v. Mathew Hunter Camarena

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52847

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: January 8, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
MATHEW HUNTER CAMARENA, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Cassia
County. Hon. Blaine P. Cannon, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty-five years, with a minimum
period of incarceration of eight years, for rape, 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 HUSKEY, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Mathew Hunter Camarena pleaded guilty to rape, Idaho Code § 18-6101. In exchange for
his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a unified sentence
of twenty-five years, with a minimum period of incarceration of eight years. Camarena appeals,
contending that his sentence is excessive.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 and

1
Camarena filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied.
Camarena does not challenge the denial of his I.C.R. 35 motion on appeal.
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, Camarena’s judgment of conviction and
sentence are affirmed.

2