State v. Koesel

1
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 52823
STATE OF IDAHO,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JASON R. KOESEL,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Filed: October 13, 2026
Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
OPINION AND SHALL NOT
BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, State of Idaho, Idaho
County. Hon. Adam H. Green, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and concurrent, unified sentences of twenty-five years,
with minimum periods of confinement of ten years, for two counts of lewd conduct
with a minor child under sixteen, affirmed.
Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, 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 PETTY, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Jason R. Koesel was found guilty of two counts of lewd conduct with a child under sixteen.
I.C. § 18-1508. The district court sentenced Koesel to concurrent, unified terms of twenty-five
years, with minimum periods of confinement of ten years. Koesel appeals, arguing that his
sentences are 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-

2
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, Koesel’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.