State of Idaho v. Adin Gidel Genis Mendez

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52573

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: December 1, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ADIN GIDEL GENIS MENDEZ, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Power
County. Hon. Javier Gabiola, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent, unified sentences of ten years, with
minimum periods of confinement of two years, for two counts of injury to a child,
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 HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Adin Gidel Genis Mendez pled guilty to two counts of injury to a child, Idaho Code
§ 18-1501(1). In exchange for his guilty plea, the State agreed to amend the charges in the instant
case and dismiss a separate case in its entirety. The district court sentenced Genis Mendez to
concurrent, unified terms of ten years, with minimum periods of confinement of two years, for
each conviction. Genis Mendez 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-

1
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, Genis Mendez’s judgment of conviction and
sentences are affirmed.

2