State of Idaho v. David Bryan Ambrose

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 50574 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: December 18, 2023 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED DAVID BRYAN AMBROSE, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Cynthia Yee-Wallace, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of incarceration of four years, for felony driving under the influence (two or more convictions within ten years), affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Amy J. Lavin, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ Before LORELLO, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM David Bryan Ambrose pled guilty to felony operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (two or more convictions within ten years), Idaho Code §§ 18-8004, -8005(6).

In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years. Ambrose then filed a pro se Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion which the district court denied. Ambrose appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive, especially when considering the information provided in support of his Rule 35 motion.

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- (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, Ambrose’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.