State of Idaho v. Israel R. Curiel Galindo
CourtIdaho Court of Appeals
Date FiledOctober 23, 2026
Docket53075
StatusUnpublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 53075
STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: October 23, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ISRAEL R. CURIEL GALINDO, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon
County. Hon. George Southworth, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twelve years, with a minimum
period of confinement of two and one-half years, for lewd conduct with a minor
child under sixteen, affirmed.
Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, 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
Israel R. Curiel Galindo was found guilty of lewd conduct with a minor child under sixteen.
Idaho Code § 18-1508. The district court sentenced Galindo to a unified term of twelve years,
with a minimum period of confinement of two and one-half years. Galindo 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-
1
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, Galindo’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
2