State v. Bryant

• Docket Number: 50671
• Decision Date: 16 January 2024
• Parties: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BENJAMIN MICHAEL BRYANT, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals

1

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
BENJAMIN MICHAEL BRYANT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 50671

Court of Appeals of Idaho

January 16, 2024

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Shoshone County. Hon. Barbara Duggan, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A. Heffner, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raul R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

Before LORELLO, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge

PER CURIAM

Benjamin Michael Bryant pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver. I.C. § 37-2732(a)(1)(A). In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court sentenced Bryant to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, to be served concurrently with an unrelated sentence. Bryant appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive.

2

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, 101415 (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, Bryant's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.