State of Idaho v. Lisa Michelle Martin

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 50908 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: July 16, 2024 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED LISA MICHELLE MARTIN, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant.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. Jason D. Scott, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent, unified sentences of two years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year and three months, for forgery and burglary, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, 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 GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and TRIBE, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Lisa Michelle Martin pled guilty to forgery, Idaho Code § 18-3601, and burglary, I.C. § 18-1401. In exchange for her guilty pleas, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed concurrent, unified sentences of two years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year and three months. Martin filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied.1 Martin appeals, arguing that her 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, Martin’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.

On appeal, Martin does not challenge the district court’s denial of her Rule 35 motion for reduction of her sentence.