STATE OF IDAHO, Filed: July 29, 2024, Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED SKYLAR WIND DANCER JOHNSON, OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50732

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: July 29, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
SKYLAR WIND DANCER JOHNSON, ) 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 unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of incarceration of four years, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jacob L. Westerfield, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM
Skylar Wind Dancer Johnson pled guilty to assault or battery upon certain personnel, Idaho
Code § 18-915(1)(b), with the use of a firearm/deadly weapon, I.C. § 19-2520. In exchange for
his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court imposed a unified sentence
of ten years, with a minimum period of incarceration of four years. Johnson 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-

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