Idaho Court of Appeals, 2024

State of Idaho v. Jessie Ray Rodriguez

State of Idaho v. Jessie Ray Rodriguez
Idaho Court of Appeals · Decided February 20, 2024
State of Idaho v. Jessie Ray Rodriguez

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 50615 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: February 20, 2024 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED JESSIE RAY RODRIGUEZ, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant.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. Jonathan Medema, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and determinate sentence of five years for unlawful possession of a firearm, 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; HUSKEY, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge Pro Tem ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Jessie Ray Rodriguez was found guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm, Idaho Code § 18-3316 and Rodriguez admitted to being a persistent violator. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a determinate sentence of five years. Rodriguez appeals, contending 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, Rodriguez’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.