CourtListener 10855752•State of Idaho v. Cecilio Eliut Camachomontoya
State of Idaho v. Cecilio Eliut Camachomontoya
CourtListener 10855752Idahoctapp28 mar 2023
Testo completo
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 49677
STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 28, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
CECILIO ELIUT CAMACHO- ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
MONTOYA, ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Steven J. Hippler, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years with seven and one-
half years determinate for vehicular manslaughter, 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 GRATTON, Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and BRAILSFORD, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Cecilio Eliut Camacho-Montoya pled guilty to one count of vehicular manslaughter, Idaho
Code § 18-4006(3)(b). The district court imposed a unified sentence of fifteen years with seven
and one-half years determinate. Camacho-Montoya 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
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, Camacho-Montoya’s judgment of conviction
and sentence are affirmed.
2
Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude
Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.