From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Domach

Court of Appeals of Idaho
Dec 20, 2021
No. 48872 (Idaho Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2021)

Opinion

48872

12-20-2021

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CHANGKUOTH DOMACH, Defendant-Appellant.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, 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UNPUBLISHED OPINION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 Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Jason D. Scott, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of two and one-half years, for possession of a firearm and being a persistent violator, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

Changkuoth Domach was found guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm, I.C. § 18-3316, and admitted to being a persistent violator, I.C. § 19-2514. The district court sentenced Domach to a unified term of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of two and one-half years. Domach appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive.

Donach also pled guilty to misdemeanor possession of marijuana and was sentenced to a concurrent term. However, Donach does not challenge this judgment of conviction or sentence on appeal.

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, Domach's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Domach

Court of Appeals of Idaho
Dec 20, 2021
No. 48872 (Idaho Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2021)
Case details for

State v. Domach

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CHANGKUOTH DOMACH…

Court:Court of Appeals of Idaho

Date published: Dec 20, 2021

Citations

No. 48872 (Idaho Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2021)