State of Idaho v. Andrew Robert Smith

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52059

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: June 25, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ANDREW ROBERT SMITH, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Kootenai County. Hon. Barbara Duggan, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum
period of confinement of seven years, for felony domestic battery in the presence
of a child, affirmed.

Silvey Law Office LTD; Greg S. Silvey, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Andrew Robert Smith pled guilty to felony domestic battery in the presence of a child.1
Idaho Code § 18-918(4). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The
district court sentenced Smith to a unified term of twenty years, with a minimum period of
confinement of seven years. Smith appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive.

1
Smith also plead guilty to two counts of misdemeanor injury to a child and one count of
misdemeanor attempted violation of a no-contact order; however, Smith does not challenge these
convictions or sentences on 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, Smith’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2