State of Idaho v. Laurentino Hurtado, Jr

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50569

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: June 6, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
LAURENTINO HURTADO, 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. Brent L. Whiting, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and aggregate unified sentence of ten years, with a
minimum period of incarceration of one year, for rape and forcible penetration with
a foreign object, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM
Laurentino Hurtado, Jr. was found guilty of rape, Idaho Code § 18-6101, and forcible
penetration with a foreign object, I.C. § 18-6608. The district court imposed a unified sentence of
ten years, with a minimum period of incarceration of one year, for rape and a unified sentence of
five years, with a minimum period of incarceration of one year, for forcible penetration with a
foreign object. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Hurtado 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 record in this case, we cannot say that
the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Hurtado’s judgment of conviction and sentences
are affirmed.

2