State of Idaho v. Jose Cervantes, Jr

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52688

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: November 25, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JOSE CERVANTES, JR., ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon
County. Hon. Gabriel McCarthy, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period
of incarceration of two years, for felony driving under the influence, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Abigael E. Schulz, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM
Jose Cervantes, Jr. pleaded guilty to felony driving under the influence (DUI), Idaho Code
§§ 18-8004, -8005(9). The district court imposed a unified sentence of five years, with a minimum
period of incarceration of two years. Cervantes appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive.
Specifically, Cervantes asserts that his sentence is excessive because of the length of the sentence
and because the district court suspending his driving privileges beyond the mandatory minimum
one-year period.
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

1
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, Cervantes’ judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2