Opinion
49252
10-24-2022
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PAUL LOWELL JENKINS, Defendant-Appellant.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth Ann 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UNPUBLISHED OPINION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 Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Cheri C. Copsey, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of three and one-half years, for felony driving under the influence of alcohol, affirmed.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth Ann 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; HUSKEY, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge
PER CURIAM.
Paul Lowell Jenkins was convicted of felony operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, Idaho Code §§ 18-8004, -8005(9), and resisting or obstructing an officer, I.C. § 18-705. For the driving under the influence charge, the district court imposed a unified sentence of ten years, with three and one-half years determinate, to run consecutively to any other sentences. The district court ordered credit for time served for resisting and obstructing an officer. Jenkins appeals, contending 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, 101415 (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, Jenkins's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.