State of Idaho v. Spencer Grant Bennett

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 49769 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: April 4, 2023 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED SPENCER GRANT BENNETT, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant.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. Michael J. Reardon, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent sentences of seven years with a minimum period of confinement of one and one-half years for possession of methamphetamine and ten years with one and one-half years determinate for grand theft, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, 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; GRATTON, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Spencer Grant Bennett pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37- 2732(c) and grand theft, I.C. §§ 18-2403(1), 18-2407(1)(b), and 18-2409. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed concurrent sentences of seven years with one and one-half years determinate for possession of methamphetamine and ten years with one and one-half years determinate for grand theft. Bennett appeals, contending that his sentences are 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, Bennett’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.