From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Lacy

Court of Appeals of Idaho
Jul 21, 2023
No. 49833 (Idaho Ct. App. Jul. 21, 2023)

Opinion

49833

07-21-2023

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MONICA MAE LACY, Defendant-Appellant.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Raul R. Labrador, 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UNPUBLISHED OPINION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. Samuel A. Hoagland, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fourteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM

Monica Mae Lacy pled guilty to grand theft. I.C. § 18-2403(1). The district court sentenced Lacy to a unified term of fourteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years, to run concurrently with other unrelated sentences. Lacy appeals, arguing 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, Lacy's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Lacy

Court of Appeals of Idaho
Jul 21, 2023
No. 49833 (Idaho Ct. App. Jul. 21, 2023)
Case details for

State v. Lacy

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MONICA MAE LACY…

Court:Court of Appeals of Idaho

Date published: Jul 21, 2023

Citations

No. 49833 (Idaho Ct. App. Jul. 21, 2023)