50008/50009/50010/50011 State v. Barrera

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 50007/50008/50009/50010/50011

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: August 23, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ANTHONY NATHANIEL BARRERA, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Elmore County. Hon. Jonathan Medema, District Judge.

Judgments of conviction and aggregate unified sentence of fifty years, with a
minimum period of incarceration of fifteen years, for four counts of rape,
kidnapping in the second degree, domestic battery, and sexual abuse of a child
under sixteen, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before GRATTON, Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and MELANSON, Judge Pro Tem
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
This appeal involves five consolidated cases. The parties reached a global plea agreement
wherein Barrera would plead guilty to some charges and the State would dismiss the remaining
charges and three other cases. In Docket No. 50007, Barrera pleaded guilty to rape, Idaho Code
§ 18-6101(4),(5) and/or (6), and the district court imposed a unified fifty-year sentence, with a
minimum period of incarceration of fifteen years. In Docket No. 50008, Barrera pleaded guilty to
rape, I.C. § 18-6101(1), and the district court imposed a unified fifty-year sentence, with a
minimum period of incarceration of fifteen years. In Docket No. 50009, Barrera pleaded guilty to

1
rape, I.C. § 18-6101(4) or (5); kidnapping in the second degree, I.C. §§ 18-4501(a), -4503; and
domestic battery, I.C. §§ 18-903(a), -918(3)(b). The district court imposed a unified fifty-year
sentence, with a minimum period of incarceration of fifteen years; a unified twenty-five-year
sentence, with a minimum period of incarceration of fifteen years; and six months of jail
respectively. In Docket No. 50010, Barrera pleaded guilty to sexual abuse of a child under sixteen
years of age, I.C. § 18-1506, and the district court imposed a determinate term of ten years. In
Docket No. 50011, Barrera pleaded guilty to rape, I.C. § 18-6101(1), and the district court imposed
a determinate term of ten years. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Barrera received
an aggregate sentence of fifty years, with fifteen years determinate. Barrera appeals, contending
that his sentences are excessive either individually or in the aggregate.
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, Barrera’s judgment of convictions and sentences
are affirmed.

2