State of Idaho v. Brady Leeray Dilworth

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 49869 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: February 28, 2024 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED BRADY LEERAY DILWORTH, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant.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. Lynn G. Norton, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for possession of a controlled substance and being a persistent violator, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, 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 LORELLO, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Brady Leeray Dilworth was found guilty of possession of a controlled substance. I.C. § 37- 2732(c). Dilworth also admitted to being a persistent violator. I.C. § 19-2514. The district court sentenced Dilworth to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years. Dilworth appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive.1

Dilworth was also found guilty of and sentenced for two misdemeanors. However, he does not challenge his judgment of conviction and sentences with regard to the misdemeanors.

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