State of Idaho v. Robert Bryon Dixon

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51712

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 27, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ROBERT BRYON DIXON, ) 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. Deborah A. Bail, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of incarceration of three years, for grand theft with a persistent violator
enhancement, 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; HUSKEY, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Robert Bryon Dixon was found guilty of grand theft, Idaho Code §§ 18-2403(1),
18-2407(1)(b), 18-2409, and 18-204, and of being a persistent violator, I.C. § 19-2514. The district
court imposed a unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of incarceration of three
years. Dixon filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35(b) motion for reduction of sentence, requesting the
court reduce the determinate portion of his sentence to two years. The district court granted
Dixon’s motion, in part, and reduced the indeterminate portion of his sentence to seven years but
declined to reduce the determinate portion, for an amended, unified sentence of ten years, with a

1
minimum period of incarceration of three years. Dixon appeals, contending that his sentence,
specifically the determinate portion, is excessive.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, Dixon’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

1
Dixon does not challenge the indeterminate portion of his sentence or the district court’s
order granting his Idaho Criminal Rule 35(b) motion.
2