State v. Gatens, 49563

CourtCourt of Appeals of Idaho
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
PartiesSTATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CANTRIP VELITE GATENS, Defendant-Appellant.
Docket Number49563
Decision Date04 November 2022

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent,

CANTRIP VELITE GATENS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 49563

Court of Appeals of Idaho

November 4, 2022


Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonner County. Hon. Barbara A. Buchanan, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of seven years, for second degree kidnapping, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

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


Cantrip Velite Gatens entered an Alford[1] plea to second degree kidnapping. I.C. § 18-4501. In exchange for her guilty plea, an additional charge of conspiracy to commit first degree murder was dismissed. The district court sentenced Gatens to a unified term of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of seven years. Gatens filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the


district court denied. Gatens appeals, arguing that her sentence is excessive and that the district court erred in denying 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. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-15 (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.

Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Gatens's Rule 35 motion. A motion for reduction of sentence under Rule 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, addressed to...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT