State of Idaho v. Forrest Lee Tomlin

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 50786 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: September 17, 2024 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED FORREST LEE TOMLIN, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonner County. Hon. Lamont C. Berecz, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years, for aggravated battery with a use of a deadly weapon enhancement, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge; and TRIBE, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Forrest Lee Tomlin was found guilty of aggravated battery with an enhancement for use of a deadly weapon, Idaho Code §§ 18-907(1)(a), 19-2520. The district court imposed a unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years. Tomlin filed an

Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied.1 Tomlin appeals, arguing 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- (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, Tomlin’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

On appeal, Tomlin does not challenge the district court’s denial of his Rule 35 motion for reduction of his sentence.