State of Idaho v. Stephanie Danielle Braden

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50812

STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: July 15, 2024 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED STEPHANIE DANIELLE BRADEN, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant.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. Samuel Hoagland, District Judge.

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

Erik R. Lehtinen, 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 HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge; and TRIBE, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Stephanie Danielle Braden pled guilty to felony driving under the influence. I.C. § 18- 8005(9). In exchange for her guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Braden to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, to run concurrently with other unrelated sentences. Braden appeals, arguing that her 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

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