State of Idaho v. William Isacc Ayotte

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 51064 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: September 4, 2024 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED WILLIAM ISACC AYOTTE, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Randall S. Grove, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and suspended, unified sentence of four years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year, for possession of a controlled substance, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge; and TRIBE, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM William Isacc Ayotte was found guilty of possession of a controlled substance. I.C. § 37- 2732(c)(1). The district court sentenced Ayotte to a unified term of four years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year. However, the district court suspended the sentence and placed Ayotte on probation. Ayotte appeals, arguing 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, Ayotte’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.