State of Idaho v. Anthony Michael Shaw

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50551

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: December 15, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ANTHONY MICHAEL SHAW, ) 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. Matthew J. Roker, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years with a minimum period
of confinement of two years for injury to a child, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Emily M. Joyce,
Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy
Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
Anthony Michael Shaw pled guilty to injury to a child, Idaho Code § 18-1501(1). In
exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge and persistent violator enhancement were
dismissed. The district court imposed a unified sentence of ten years with two years determinate.
Shaw appeals, contending that his sentence is 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
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.

1
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, Shaw’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2