State of Idaho v. Paul A. Walkenshaw

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52180

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: August 13, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
PAUL A. WALKENSHAW, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

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 six 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, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Paul A. Walkenshaw pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance with the intent to
deliver. Idaho Code § 37-2732(a)(1)(A). In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was
dismissed and a separate case was dismissed in its entirety. The district court sentenced
Walkenshaw to a unified term of six years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years.
Walkenshaw filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied.1

1
On appeal, Walkenshaw does not challenge the district court’s denial of his Rule 35 motion
for reduction of sentence.

1
Walkenshaw appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive and that the district court should have
placed him on probation or retained jurisdiction.
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, Walkenshaw’s judgment of conviction and
sentence are affirmed.

2