State of Idaho v. Anthony Robert Sanchez

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52597

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: November 13, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ANTHONY ROBERT SANCHEZ, ) 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. Lynn G. Norton, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period
of confinement of one year, for aggravated assault, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
Anthony Robert Sanchez pled guilty to aggravated assault, Idaho Code §§ 18-90l(a), 18-
905(b), 18-204. The district court withheld judgment and placed Sanchez on probation for a period
of five years. Sanchez subsequently admitted to violating the probation and the district court
revoked his withheld judgment and probation and imposed a unified term of five years with one
year determinate. Sanchez appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion by
imposing an excessive sentence after revoking Sanchez’s withheld judgment.
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, Sanchez’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2