State of Idaho v. Milo Michael Johnson

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51477

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: November 27, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
MILO MICHAEL JOHNSON, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Gooding
County. Hon. Rosemary Emory, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum
period of confinement of five years, for sexual abuse of a child under the age of
sixteen years, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Milo Michael Johnson pled guilty to sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen years.
I.C. § 18-1506. The district court sentenced Johnson to a unified term of twenty years, with a
minimum period of confinement of five years. Johnson filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the
district court denied. Johnson 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, Johnson’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

2