State v. Garrett

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER PHILIP GARRETT…

Court: Court of Appeals of Idaho

Date published: Sep 15, 2023

No. 50545 (Idaho Ct. App. Sep. 15, 2023)

Opinion

50545

09-15-2023

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER PHILIP GARRETT, Defendant-Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Derrick J. O'Neill, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for first degree stalking, affirmed.

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

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

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

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Philip Garrett pled guilty to first degree stalking. I.C. § 18-7905. The district court sentenced Garrett to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years. Garrett filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Garrett 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, Garrett's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.