From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Isenberg

Court of Appeals of Idaho
Mar 1, 2022
No. 48968 (Idaho Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2022)

Opinion

48968

03-01-2022

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LAURCENE BARNES ISENBERG, Defendant-Appellant.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, 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UNPUBLISHED OPINION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 First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. Scott Wayman, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of life with thirty years determinate for second degree murder, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM

Laurcene Barnes Isenberg entered an Alford plea to second degree murder, Idaho Code §§ 18-4001, 18-4003(g). The district court imposed a unified sentence of life with thirty years determinate. Isenberg appeals, contending that her sentence is excessive.

See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).

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


Summaries of

State v. Isenberg

Court of Appeals of Idaho
Mar 1, 2022
No. 48968 (Idaho Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2022)
Case details for

State v. Isenberg

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LAURCENE BARNES ISENBERG…

Court:Court of Appeals of Idaho

Date published: Mar 1, 2022

Citations

No. 48968 (Idaho Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2022)