State of Idaho v. Deon Ellington Waynewood

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50305

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: November 6, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
DEON ELLINGTON WAYNEWOOD, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bonneville County. Hon. Dane H. Watkins, Jr., District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty-five years, with eight years
determinate, for sexual battery of a minor child age sixteen or seventeen years of
age, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds,
Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Deon Ellington Waynewood entered an Alford1 plea to an
amended charge of sexual battery of a minor child age sixteen or seventeen years of age, Idaho
Code § 18-1508A(1)(c), and the State dismissed additional charges. The district court imposed a
unified sentence of twenty-five years, with eight years determinate. Waynewood appeals,
contending that his sentence is excessive.

1
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).
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, Waynewood’s judgment of conviction and
sentence are affirmed.

2