51337 State v. Swank

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 51336/51337

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: September 30, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
BREYDON WEST QUINN SWANK, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonner
County. Hon. Lamont C. Berecz, District Judge.

Judgments of conviction and aggregate, unified sentence of twenty years, with a
minimum period of incarceration of seven years, for lewd conduct with a child and
felony injury to a child, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
This appeal involves two consolidated cases. In Docket No. 51136, Breydon West Quinn
Swank pled guilty to lewd conduct with a child under sixteen, Idaho Code § 18-1508. The district
court imposed a unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum period of incarceration of seven
years. In Docket No. 51137, Swank pled guilty to felony injury to a child, I.C. § 18-1501(1), and
the district court imposed a unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of incarceration
of five years. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Swank appeals, contending 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 records in these cases, we cannot say
that the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Swank’s judgments of conviction and
sentences are affirmed.

2