State v. Lewis

• Docket Number: 50593
• Decision Date: 21 December 2023
• Parties: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JAYCEE NICOLE LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals

1

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JAYCEE NICOLE LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 50593

Court of Appeals of Idaho

December 21, 2023

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Cynthia Yee-Wallace, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years, for possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State 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

Jaycee Nicole Lewis pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver. I.C. § 37-2732(a). In exchange for her guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Lewis to a unified term of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years. Lewis filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Lewis appeals, arguing that her sentence is excessive and that the district court should have retained

2

jurisdiction. Lewis further argues 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.

We note that the decision to place a defendant on probation or whether, instead, to relinquish jurisdiction over the defendant is a...