From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Rundell

Court of Appeals of Idaho
Feb 9, 2023
No. 49872 (Idaho Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2023)

Opinion

49872

02-09-2023

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. URIAH Z. RUNDELL, Defendant-Appellant.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jacob L. Westerfield, 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UNPUBLISHED OPINION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. Peter G. Barton, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years with eight years determinate for trafficking in heroin, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jacob L. Westerfield, 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 BRAILSFORD, Judge

PER CURIAM

Uriah Z. Rundell pled guilty to trafficking in heroin, Idaho Code § 37-2732B(a)(6)(A), and misdemeanor operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs, I.C. § 18-8004. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a unified sentence of twenty years with eight years determinate for trafficking and a concurrent sentence of six months in jail with credit for six months served for the misdemeanor. Rundell appeals, contending that his trafficking 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, Rundell's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Rundell

Court of Appeals of Idaho
Feb 9, 2023
No. 49872 (Idaho Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2023)
Case details for

State v. Rundell

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. URIAH Z. RUNDELL…

Court:Court of Appeals of Idaho

Date published: Feb 9, 2023

Citations

No. 49872 (Idaho Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2023)