State of Idaho v. Austin Allen Genius

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52633

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: August 11, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
AUSTIN ALLEN GENIUS, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon
County. Hon. Juneal C. Kerrick, Senior District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period
of confinement of four years, for first degree stalking, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, 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
Austin Allen Genius pled guilty to first degree stalking, Idaho Code § 18-7905. In
exchange for his guilty plea, a persistent violator allegation was dismissed. The district court
imposed a unified term of five years with four years determinate to run consecutively with the
sentence in another case. Genius filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion which was denied.1
Genius appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive
sentence.

1
The denial of Genius’s Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion is not at issue in this appeal.
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, Genius’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2