State of Idaho v. Tyler Joe Nourse

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50822

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 23, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
TYLER JOE NOURSE, ) 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. Thomas W. Whitney, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty-eight years, with a
minimum period of confinement of eighteen years, for aggravated battery with a
persistent violator enhancement, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A. Heffner, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Tyler Joe Nourse entered an Alford1 plea to aggravated battery, Idaho Code § 18-907, and
admitted to being a persistent violator, I.C. § 19-2514. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional
charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a unified sentence of twenty-eight years, with
a minimum period of confinement of eighteen years, for aggravated battery and the persistent
violator enhancement. Nourse appeals, arguing 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, Nourse’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2