State of Idaho v. Alfred Thomas Hughes

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 49897

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 18, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ALFRED THOMAS HUGHES, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Cassia
County. Hon. Michael P. Tribe, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period
of confinement of two years, for attempting to remove a firearm from a law
enforcement officer, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A. Heffner, 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
Alfred Thomas Hughes entered an Alford1 plea to attempting to remove a firearm from a
law enforcement officer, Idaho Code § 18-915(A). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional
charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a unified sentence of five years, with a
minimum period of incarceration of two years, and retained jurisdiction. Hughes appeals,
contending that his sentence is excessive. Specifically, Hughes asserts the district court should
have imposed a lesser indeterminate portion of his sentence.

1
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).
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, Hughes’ judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2