State of Idaho v. Jeremy Eugene Hansford

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 49455

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: June 27, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JEREMY EUGENE HANSFORD, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Boise
County. Hon. Ronald J. Wilper, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and aggregate sentences of twenty years, with a minimum
period of incarceration of ten years, for ten counts of possession of sexually
exploitative material, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM
Jeremy Eugene Hansford was found guilty of ten counts of possession of sexually
exploitative material, Idaho Code § 18-1507(2)(a). For the first count, the district court imposed
a determinate ten-year sentence. For each of the remaining nine counts, the district court imposed
a ten-year indeterminate sentence with these sentences to run concurrently with each other, but
consecutive to the first count. Hansford appeals, contending that his sentences are excessive and
requests this Court to reduce his sentence to a unified fifteen-year sentence, with a minimum period
of incarceration of two and one-half years.

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, Hansford’s judgment of conviction and
sentences are affirmed.

2