State of Idaho v. Eric E. Osuna

• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 8, 2023
• Docket: 50219
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50219

STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: November 8, 2023 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ERIC E. OSUNA, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant.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. Steven J. Hippler, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and determinate life sentence for first degree murder, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, 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 Eric E. Osuna pled guilty to first degree murder, Idaho Code §§ 18-4001, 18-4002, 18- 4003, 18-204. In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court imposed a determinate life sentence. Osuna 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- 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

1 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). “To impose a fixed life sentence ‘requires a high degree of certainty that the perpetrator could never be safely released back into society or that the nature of the offense requires that the individual spend the rest of his life behind bars.’” State v. Windom, 150 Idaho 873, 876, 253 P.3d 310, 313 (2011) (quoting State v. Cross, 132 Idaho 667, 672, 978 P.2d 227, 232 (1999)). In State v. Jackson, 130 Idaho 293, 294, 939 P.2d 1372, 1373 (1997), the Idaho Supreme Court quoted the following language from this Court with its approval: “a fixed life sentence may be deemed reasonable if the offense is so egregious that it demands an exceptionally severe measure of retribution and deterrence . . . .” (quoting State v. Eubank, 114 Idaho 635, 638, 759 P.2d 926, 929 (Ct. App. 1988)). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Osuna’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.