State of Idaho v. Nicholas David Umphenour

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52414

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: August 11, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
NICHOLAS DAVID UMPHENOUR, ) 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. Nancy Baskin, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and aggregate term of life with forty years determinate for
two counts of aggravated battery on certain law enforcement personnel, aggravated
assault on certain law enforcement personnel, aiding and abetting escape, use of a
firearm or deadly weapon during the commission of a crime, and unlawful
possession of a firearm, with a persistent violator enhancement, affirmed.

Waldren Legal, PLLC; Maya P. Waldron, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Nicholas David Umphenour pled guilty to two counts of aggravated battery on certain law
enforcement personnel, Idaho Code §§ 18-915(1), 18-907; aggravated assault on certain law
enforcement personnel, I.C. §§ 18-915(1), 18-905; aiding and abetting escape, I.C. §§ 18-2505,
18-204; use of a firearm or deadly weapon during the commission of a crime, I.C. § 19-2520; and
unlawful possession of a firearm, I.C. §§ 18-3316, 19-304, with a persistent violator enhancement.
In exchange for his guilty pleas, additional sentencing enhancements were withdrawn or

1
dismissed. The district court imposed an aggregate sentence of life with forty years determinate.
Umphenour appeals, contending 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, Umphenour’s judgment of conviction and
sentence are affirmed.

2