53305
Idaho Ct. App.
Jul 8, 2026

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MEMPHIS WADE PENNINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 53305

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

July 8, 2026

Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

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

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for sexual abuse of a child under sixteen years of age, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

Before TRIBE, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge; and FLEMING, Judge

PER CURIAM

Memphis Wade Pennington pled guilty to sexual abuse of a child under sixteen years of age. I.C. § 18-1501(1)(b). In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court sentenced Pennington to a unified term of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years. Pennington filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Pennington 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, Pennington‘s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.