State of Idaho v. Shawn Alan Sacolick

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50583

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: January 17, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
SHAWN ALAN SACOLICK, ) 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. Jason D. Scott, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction for penetration with a foreign object, with an enhancement
for repeat sexual offender, and unified forty-year sentence, with a minimum period
of incarceration of eighteen years, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A. Heffner, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kale D. Gans, Deputy Attorney General,
Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and MELANSON, Judge Pro Tem
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Shawn Alan Sacolick was found guilty of felony forcible penetration by a foreign object,
Idaho Code § 18-6608, with a repeat sexual offender enhancement, I.C. § 19-2520G, and
misdemeanor sexual battery, I.C. 18-924. The district court imposed a unified forty-year sentence,
with eighteen years determinate, for the sexual penetration with a foreign object with the
enhancement, and credit for time served for the misdemeanor. Sacolick appeals, contending that
his sentence is 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, Sacolick’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2