State of Idaho v. Roger Lee Gibbs

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 52795 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: December 15, 2025 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ROGER LEE GIBBS, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant.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. Thomas W. Whitney, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fourteen and one-half years, with a minimum period of confinement of four and one-half years, for possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Abigael E. Schulz, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and TRIBE, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Roger Lee Gibbs pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver, Idaho Code § 37-2732(a)(1)(A). In exchange for his guilty plea, the State agreed to dismiss Gibb’s other case in its entirety. The district court sentenced Gibbs to a unified term of fourteen and one-half years, with a minimum period of confinement of four and one-half years.1

This sentence was ordered to run concurrently with any other sentence Gibbs is currently serving.

Gibbs filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied.2 Gibbs 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, Gibbs’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

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