State of Idaho v. Aurelio Ralph Gayton IV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52764

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 6, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
AURELIO RALPH GAYTON, IV, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Kootenai County. Hon. Barry McHugh, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of forty years, with a minimum period
of confinement of fifteen years, for felony driving under the influence, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender; and Katherine Ball and Faith Quigley, University of
Idaho Legal Aid Clinic, Boise, for appellant

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before TRIBE, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Aurelio Ralph Gayton, IV, pled guilty to felony driving under the influence and being a
persistent violator, Idaho Code §§ 18-8004, 18-8005(9), and 19-2514. In exchange for his guilty
plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a unified term of forty years
with fifteen years determinate to be served concurrently with two separate cases. Gayton appeals,
contending 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

1
(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, Gayton’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2