State v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 04 November 2022
• Docket Number: 49467
• Parties: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JACOB SCOTT JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JACOB SCOTT JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 49467

Court of Appeals of Idaho

November 4, 2022

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Gooding County. Hon. Rosemary Emory, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years with five years determinate for vehicular manslaughter, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jacob L. Westerfield, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before GRATTON, Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge.

PER CURIAM

Jacob Scott Johnson pled guilty to vehicular manslaughter, Idaho Code § 18-4006(3)(b). The district court imposed a unified sentence of fifteen years with five years determinate. Johnson 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, 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, Johnson's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.