From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Nourse

Court of Appeals of Idaho
May 23, 2024
No. 50822 (Idaho Ct. App. May. 23, 2024)

Opinion

50822

05-23-2024

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TYLER JOE NOURSE, Defendant-Appellant.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A. Heffner, 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UNPUBLISHED OPINION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 Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Thomas W. Whitney, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty-eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of eighteen years, for aggravated battery with a persistent violator enhancement, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A. Heffner, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM

Tyler Joe Nourse entered an Alford plea to aggravated battery, Idaho Code § 18-907, and admitted to being a persistent violator, I.C. § 19-2514. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a unified sentence of twenty-eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of eighteen years, for aggravated battery and the persistent violator enhancement. Nourse appeals, arguing that his 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, 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, Nourse's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Nourse

Court of Appeals of Idaho
May 23, 2024
No. 50822 (Idaho Ct. App. May. 23, 2024)
Case details for

State v. Nourse

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TYLER JOE NOURSE…

Court:Court of Appeals of Idaho

Date published: May 23, 2024

Citations

No. 50822 (Idaho Ct. App. May. 23, 2024)