State of Idaho v. Forrest Lee Tomlin

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50786

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: September 17, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
FORREST LEE TOMLIN, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonner
County. Hon. Lamont C. Berecz, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum
period of confinement of ten years, for aggravated battery with a use of a deadly
weapon enhancement, 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
Forrest Lee Tomlin was found guilty of aggravated battery with an enhancement for use of
a deadly weapon, Idaho Code §§ 18-907(1)(a), 19-2520. The district court imposed a unified
sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years. Tomlin filed an

1
Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied.1 Tomlin appeals, arguing 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-
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, Tomlin’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

1
On appeal, Tomlin does not challenge the district court’s denial of his Rule 35 motion for
reduction of his sentence.

2