State of Idaho v. Denis Patrick White

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 52148 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: July 22, 2025 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED DENIS PATRICK WHITE, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant.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. Jonathan Medema, District Judge.

Judgment and conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, for enticing a child through the use of the internet or other communication device, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy State 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 Denis Patrick White pled guilty to enticing a child through the use of the internet or other communication device. Idaho Code § 18-1509A. In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed, and the State agreed not to file a persistent violator enhancement. The district court sentenced White to a unified term of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years.1 White appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive.

The district court ordered this sentence to run concurrently with any other sentence White is currently serving.

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, White’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.