STATE OF IDAHO, Filed: March 17, 2025, Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED NATHAN CHRISTOPHER GUMAER, OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51638

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 17, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
NATHAN CHRISTOPHER GUMAER, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bingham County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty-five years, with a minimum
period of incarceration of ten years; order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion,
affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A. Heffner, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Elizabeth H. Estess, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Nathan Christopher Gumaer pled guilty to sexual abuse of a minor child under sixteen
years of age, Idaho Code § 18-1506. 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 ten years. Gumaer filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the
district court denied. Gumaer appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive, specifically
asserting the district court abused its discretion by not suspending his sentence and placing him on

1
probation, or alternatively, retaining jurisdiction, and that the district court abused its discretion by
denying his Rule 35 motion.
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. 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). That discretion includes the trial court’s decision
regarding whether a defendant should be placed on probation and whether to retain jurisdiction.
I.C. § 19-2601(3), (4); State v. Reber, 138 Idaho 275, 278, 61 P.3d 632, 635 (Ct. App. 2002); State
v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 205-06, 786 P.2d 594, 596-97 (Ct. App. 1990). 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.
Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Gumaer’s Rule 35 motion. A
motion for reduction of sentence under Rule 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, addressed to the
sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 23, 24 (2006); State
v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In presenting a Rule 35 motion,
the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of new or additional information
subsequently provided to the district court in support of the motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho
201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the record, including any new information
submitted with Gumaer’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.
Therefore, Gumaer’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order
denying Gumaer’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.

2