Full Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 53350 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: November 5, 2026 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED MUDITULLAH TEMORI, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant.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. Peter G. Barton, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and suspended unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year, for malicious injury to property, affirmed. Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kierra W. Mai, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ Before TRIBE, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge; and FLEMING, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Muditullah Temori pled guilty to malicious injury to property, Idaho Code § 18-7001(2). In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court sentenced Temori to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year; however, the district court suspended the sentence, placed Temori on probation, and imposed thirty 1 days jail. Temori filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied.1 Temori 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- 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, Temori’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed. 1 On appeal, Temori does not challenge the district court’s denial of his I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence. 2