State of Idaho v. Kent Tenneson Sams

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 50114 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: April 24, 2023 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED KENT TENNESON SAMS, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant.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. Peter G. Barton, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified life sentence, with a minimum period of confinement of thirteen years, for felony operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (one felony conviction within fifteen years), affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ Before LORELLO, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Kent Tenneson Sams was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (one felony conviction within fifteen years), Idaho Code §§ 18-8004, 18- 8005(9). The district court imposed a life sentence, with a minimum period of incarceration of thirteen years. Sams appeals, contending that his 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, Sams’ judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.