50022 State v. Otero

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 50021/50022

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: September 29, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
LEROY ANTHONY OTERO, ) 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.

Judgments of conviction and unified concurrent sentences of six years, with a
minimum period of confinement of three years, for burglary and possession of a
controlled substance, affirmed.

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

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Mark O. Olson, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before LORELLO, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
and HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
In Docket No. 50021, Leroy Anthony Otero was found guilty of burglary, Idaho Code
§ 18-1401. In Docket No. 50022, Otero pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, I.C.
§ 37-2732(c)(1). At a joint sentencing hearing, the district court imposed concurrent sentences
of six years with three years determinate for each case. Otero appeals, contending 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

1
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, Otero’s judgments of conviction and
concurrent sentences are affirmed.

2