Full Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 53795 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: November 5, 2026 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED GREGORIO CASARRUBIAS-NINO, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant.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 aggregate sentence of thirty years, with a minimum period of confinement of fifteen years, for three counts of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen, affirmed. Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Abigael E. Schulz, 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; FLEMING, Judge; and PETTY, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Gregorio Casarrubias-Nino pled guilty to three counts of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen, Idaho Code § 18-1508. In exchange for his guilty pleas, additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Casarrubias-Nino to an aggregate term of thirty years, with a minimum period of confinement of fifteen years.1 Casarrubias-Nino appeals, arguing that his sentences are excessive. 1 Specifically, the district court sentenced Casarrubias-Nino to consecutive unified terms of ten years, with minimum periods of confinement of five years, for each count. 1 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, Casarrubias-Nino’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed. 2