State of Idaho v. Melvin Eugene Monroe, Jr

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 51397 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: January 28, 2025 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED MELVIN EUGENE MONROE, JR., ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, State of Idaho, Idaho County. Hon. Adam H. Green, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified term of thirty years, with a minimum period of confinement of fifteen years, for lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A Coster, 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 Melvin Eugene Monroe, Jr. pled guilty to lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen. Idaho Code § 18-1508. In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court sentenced Monroe to a unified term of thirty years, with a minimum period of confinement of fifteen years. Monroe 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, Monroe’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.