52297 State v. Smalley

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 52296/52297

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: January 27, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
THOMAS ELBERT SMALLEY, III, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Cassia
County. Hon. Blaine P. Cannon, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of three years with a minimum period
of confinement of one year for possession of a controlled substance; consecutive,
unified sentence of five years with a minimum period of confinement of two years
for battery on a correctional officer, 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
In Docket No. 52296, Thomas Elbert Smalley, III pled guilty to possession of a controlled
substance, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1). In Docket No. 52297, Smalley pled guilty to battery on a
correctional officer, I.C. § 18-915(2)(b). The district court withheld judgment in both cases and
placed Smalley on probation for a period of three years. Subsequently, Smalley admitted to
violating the probation. At the disposition hearing, the district court revoked the withheld
judgment and probation, entered a judgment of conviction, and imposed a unified term of three
years with one year determinate in Docket No. 52296 and a consecutive, unified term of five years

1
with two years determinate in Docket No. 52297, and retained jurisdiction. On appeal, Smalley
does not challenge the district court’s decision to revoke probation and enter a judgment of
conviction, but argues only that the district court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive
sentences.
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-
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. Therefore, the orders revoking probation and imposing
consecutive sentences are affirmed.

2