STATE OF IDAHO v. TIMOTHY FRANCIS McARTHUR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 52833 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: March 20, 2026 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED TIMOTHY FRANCIS McARTHUR, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant.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. Derrick J. O’Neill, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for felony driving the influence, 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 TRIBE, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and LORELLO, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Timothy Francis McArthur pled guilty to felony driving under the influence. I.C. §§ 18- 8004 and 18-8005(6). The district court sentenced McArthur to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years. McArthur appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive.1

McArthur also pled guilty to and was sentenced for misdemeanor resisting arrest.

However, he does not challenge this judgment of conviction and sentence on appeal.

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