State of Idaho v. Kenneth Thomas McDonald

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 49696 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: April 5, 2023 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED KENNETH THOMAS MCDONALD, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant.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. Jonathan Medema, District Judge.

Amended judgment of conviction and unified life sentence, with a minimum period of incarceration of seventeen years, for robbery, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jacob L. Westerfield, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ Before LORELLO, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Kenneth Thomas McDonald pled guilty to robbery, Idaho Code §§ 18-6501, -6502. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced McDonald. Following an appeal and a petition for post-conviction relief, the district court entered an amended judgment of conviction which imposed a life sentence, with a minimum period of incarceration of seventeen years. McDonald 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- (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, McDonald’s amended judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.