State of Idaho v. Michael Boyd Brookbank

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51698

STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: July 18, 2025 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED MICHAEL BOYD BROOKBANK, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) )

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Lincoln County. Hon. Ned C. Williamson, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of seven years, for felony driving under the influence, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A. Heffner, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and TRIBE, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Michael Boyd Brookbank pled guilty to felony driving under the influence (DUI). Idaho Code § 18-8005(9). In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed including an allegation that he is a persistent violator. The district court sentenced Brookbank to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of seven years. Brookbank 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);

1 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, Brookbank’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.