State of Idaho v. Trevor Kevin Kolar

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50317

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: November 15, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
TREVOR KEVIN KOLAR, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Shoshone County. Hon. Barbara Duggan, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum
period of confinement of eight years, for sexual battery of a minor sixteen to
seventeen years of age, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, 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
Trevor Kevin Kolar pled guilty to an amended charge of sexual battery of a minor sixteen
or seventeen years of age. I.C. § 18-1508A(1)(c). In exchange for his guilty plea, the State agreed
to dismiss unrelated probation violation allegations. The district court sentenced Kolar to a unified
term of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of eight years. Kolar filed an
I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Kolar appeals, arguing that his sentence is
excessive.

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, Kolar’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

2