Opinion
49770
02-03-2023
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KRIS TINA MAY, 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.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Cassia County. Hon. Michael P. Tribe, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and concurrent, unified sentences of ten years with three years determinate for two counts of felony possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, 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 GRATTON, Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge
PER CURIAM
Kris Tina May entered Alford pleas to two counts of felony possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, Idaho Code § 37-2732(a)(1)(A). In exchange for her guilty pleas, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed concurrent, unified sentences of ten years with three years determinate. May appeals, contending that her sentences are 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, May's judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.