State of Idaho v. Jason Kenneth Wallace

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 52389 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: January 30, 2026 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED JASON KENNETH WALLACE, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant.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. Lynn G. Norton, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year, for possession of a controlled substance and being a persistent violator, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kierra W. Mai, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and LORELLO, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Jason Kenneth Wallace was found guilty of possession of a controlled substance. I.C. § 37- 2732(c). Wallace then admitted to being a persistent violator. I.C. § 19-2514. The district court sentenced Wallace to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year, to be served consecutively to an unrelated sentence. Wallace appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive.1 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, Wallace’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

Wallace was also found guilty of and sentenced for a misdemeanor offense. However, Wallace does not challenge this judgment of conviction and sentence on appeal.