State of Idaho v. Christopher Gene Johnson

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51357

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: November 12, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
CHRISTOPHER GENE JOHNSON, ) 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. Patrick J. Miller, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and a unified sentence of eight years, with a minimum
period of confinement of two years, for domestic violence or battery in the presence
of a child, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, 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
Christopher Gene Johnson was found guilty of domestic violence or battery in the presence
of a child. Idaho Code §§ 18-918(2), 18-918(4) and 18-903(a).1 The district court sentenced
Johnson to a unified term of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years and
retained jurisdiction. Johnson appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive.

1
Throughout the history of this case, this code section was referred to as 18-903(A),
however, the correct code section is 18-903(a).

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

2