State of Idaho v. Roy Roland Araiza, Sr

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51759

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: November 25, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ROY ROLAND ARAIZA, SR., ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin
Falls County. Hon. Roger B. Harris, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of thirty years, with a minimum period
of confinement of twelve years, for aggravated battery with an enhancement for use
of a deadly weapon and being a persistent violator of the law, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Mark W. Olson, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Roy Roland Araiza, Sr. was found guilty of aggravated battery (Idaho Code § 18-907(1)(b))
with an enhancement for use of a deadly weapon (I.C. § 19-2520). Araiza also admitted to being
a persistent violator of the law (I.C. § 19-2514). The district court sentenced Araiza to a unified
term of thirty years, with a minimum period of confinement of twelve years. Araiza 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-

1
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, Araiza’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2