51430 State v. Andrade

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 51429/51430

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 1, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
DANIEL ANDRADE, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bannock County. Hon. Rick Carnaroli, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent, unified sentences of forty years, with
minimum periods of confinement of fifteen years, for two counts of lewd conduct
with a child under sixteen and one count of inducing a child into commercial sexual
activity in Docket 51429, affirmed; judgment of conviction and unified sentence of
forty years, with a minimum period of confinement of fifteen years, for one count
of lewd conduct with a child under sixteen in Docket 51430, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Stacey M. Donohue, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, 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
This appeal involves two consolidated cases. In Docket No. 51429, Daniel Andrade pled
guilty to two counts of lewd conduct with a child under sixteen (Idaho Code § 18-1508) and one
count of inducing a child into commercial sexual activity (I.C. § 18-5609). In exchange for his
guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Andrade to concurrent,

1
unified terms of forty years, with minimum periods of confinement of fifteen years.1 In Docket
No. 51430, Andrade pled guilty to one count of lewd conduct with a child under sixteen
(I.C. § 18-1508). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district
court sentenced Andrade to a unified term of forty years, with a minimum period of confinement
of fifteen years.2 In both cases, Andrade filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district
court denied.3 Andrade appeals, arguing that his sentences are 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 records in these cases, we cannot say
that the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Andrade’s judgments of conviction and
sentences are affirmed.

1
These sentences were ordered to run concurrently with the sentence in Docket No. 51430.
2
This sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the sentences in Docket No. 51429.
3
On appeal, Andrade does not challenge the district court’s denial of his Rule 35 motions
for reduction of his sentences.

2