State of Idaho v. Eddie Daniel Cardona

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50156

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: December 26, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
EDDIE DANIEL CARDONA, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Cheri C. Copsey, Senior District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified aggregate sentence of twenty-five years with
a minimum period of confinement of ten years for attempted strangulation,
domestic violence with traumatic injury, domestic battery in the presence of a
child, and injury to a child, with persistent violator enhancement, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim 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
Eddie Daniel Cardona was found guilty of attempted strangulation, Idaho Code § 18-923;
domestic violence with traumatic injury, I.C. §§ 18-918(2), 18-903(a); domestic battery in the
presence of a child, I.C. §§ 18-918(5), 18-903(a), 18-918(4); and injury to a child
(misdemeanor), I.C. § 18-1501(2). Cardona admitted he was a persistent violator, I.C. § 19-
2514. The district court imposed a unified term of fifteen years with ten years determinate for
attempted strangulation; ten years indeterminate for domestic violence; ten years indeterminate for
domestic battery in the presence of a child; and six months jail with credit for time served on the

1
misdemeanor injury to a child count, for an aggregate unified sentence of twenty-five years with ten
years determinate. Cardona appeals, contending that his aggregate 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, Cardona’s judgment of conviction and
sentence are affirmed.

2