State of Idaho v. Victor Enrique Parra

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52136

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 30, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
VICTOR ENRIQUE PARRA, ) 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. Brent L. Whiting, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period
of confinement of three years, for eluding a police officer and consecutive unified
sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of six months, for
destruction of evidence, 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 GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Victor Enrique Parra pled guilty to eluding a peace officer, I.C. § 49-1404(2), and
destruction of evidence, I.C. § 18-2603. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were
dismissed. The district court sentenced Parra to a unified sentence of five years, with a minimum
period of confinement of three years, for eluding a police officer and consecutive unified sentence
of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of six months, for destruction of evidence.
Parra appeals, arguing that his sentences are excessive.

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, Parra’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.

2