State of Idaho v. Danny E. Thompson

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 51552 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: July 21, 2025 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED DANNY E. THOMPSON, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Boise County. Hon. Theodore Fleming, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and determinate sentence of fifteen years for attempted first degree murder, with a consecutive indeterminate sentence of five years for unlawful possession of a firearm, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, 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 Danny E. Thompson was found guilty of attempted first degree murder, Idaho Code § 18- 4003(a) and unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, I.C. § 18-3316. The district court imposed a determinate term of fifteen years for attempted first degree murder and a consecutive sentence of five years indeterminate for lawful possession of a firearm, to run consecutively to an unrelated sentence. Thompson 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, Thompson’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.