State of Idaho v. Matthew John Seaton

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 53039

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 19, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
MATTHEW JOHN SEATON, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Kootenai County. Hon. John A. Cafferty, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of thirty years with a minimum period
of confinement of ten years for lewd conduct with child under sixteen, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
Matthew John Seaton pled guilty to lewd conduct with child under sixteen, Idaho Code
§ 18-1508. The district court imposed a unified term of thirty years with ten years determinate.
Seaton also filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion which was denied.1 Seaton appeals,
contending 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-

1
The denial of Seaton’s Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion is not at issue in this appeal.
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, Seaton’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2