From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Conser

Court of Appeals of Idaho
Nov 23, 2021
No. 47736 (Idaho Ct. App. Nov. 23, 2021)

Opinion

47736

11-23-2021

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JESSICA ARLEEN CONSER, Defendant-Appellant.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.


UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Madison County. Hon. Steven W. Boyce, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of life with a minimum period of confinement of eighteen years for second degree murder, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

Before HUSKEY, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and LORELLO, Judge

PER CURIAM

Jessica Arleen Conser pled guilty to second degree murder, Idaho Code §§ 18-4001, 18-4003(g). At the sentencing hearing, Conser agreed to the indeterminate sentence of life but requested that the district court order a determinate term of seven years. The district court imposed a unified term of life with eighteen years determinate. Conser appeals, contending 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 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, Conser's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Conser

Court of Appeals of Idaho
Nov 23, 2021
No. 47736 (Idaho Ct. App. Nov. 23, 2021)
Case details for

State v. Conser

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JESSICA ARLEEN CONSER…

Court:Court of Appeals of Idaho

Date published: Nov 23, 2021

Citations

No. 47736 (Idaho Ct. App. Nov. 23, 2021)