State of Idaho v. Shelby Gale Burns

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 52145 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: December 5, 2025 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED SHELBY GALE BURNS, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant.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. Nancy A. Baskin, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eleven years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years, for trafficking in methamphetamine, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Stacey M. Donohue, 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; LORELLO, Judge and TRIBE, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Shelby Gale Burns pled guilty to trafficking in methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-2732B(a)(4)(A). In exchange for her guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Burns to a unified term of eleven years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years.1 Burns filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied.2 Burns appeals, arguing that her sentence is excessive.

This sentence was ordered to run concurrently “with all other holds.”

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

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