State v. Santos-Quintero

1
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 52433
STATE OF IDAHO,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JUAN SANTOS-QUINTERO,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Filed: October 14, 2026
Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
OPINION AND SHALL NOT
BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Steven J. Hippler, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and determinate life sentence for first degree murder,
affirmed.
Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________
Before LORELLO, Judge; FLEMING, Judge;
and PETTY, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Juan Santos-Quintero was found guilty of first degree murder. Idaho Code § § 18-4001,
-4002, -4003, and -204. Santos-Quintero brutally murdered the victim while Santos-Quintero was
serving a sentence in prison with the Idaho Department of Correction. The district court imposed
a determinate life sentence. Santos-Quintero appeals, arguing 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 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 1984);

2
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).
A fixed life sentence requires a high degree of certainty that the perpetrator could never be
safely released back into society or that the nature of the offense requires that the individual spend
the rest of his or her life behind bars. State v. Windom, 150 Idaho 873, 876, 253 P.3d 310, 313
(2011). See also State v. Li, 131 Idaho 126, 129, 952 P.2d 1262, 1265 (Ct. App. 1998); State v.
Eubank, 114 Idaho 635, 638, 759 P.2d 926, 929 (Ct. App. 1988).
Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that
the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Santos-Quintero’s judgment of conviction and
sentence are affirmed.