State of Idaho v. John Clinton Meina

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 51575 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: September 16, 2024 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED JOHN CLINTON MEINA, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bingham County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for felony operating a motor vehicle while under the influence, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Amy J. Lavin, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and TRIBE, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM John Clinton Meina entered an Alford1 plea to felony operating a motor vehicle while under the influence, Idaho Code § 18-8005(9). In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed including an allegation that he was a persistent violator. The district court imposed a unified term of ten years with two years determinate to be served consecutively to the sentence in an unrelated case. Meina appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive.

See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).

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, Meina’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.