State of Idaho v. Wayne Mack Lanier

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51926

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 5, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
WAYNE MACK LANIER, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Cheri C. Copsey, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum
period of confinement of three years, for possession of a controlled substance and
a persistent violator enhancement, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Wayne Mack Lanier was found guilty of possession of a controlled substance. Idaho Code
§ 37-2732(c).1 Lanier admitted to being a persistent violator. I.C. § 19-2514. At sentencing,
Lanier requested he be placed in the drug court program and left the underlying sentence to the
discretion of the court. The district court sentenced Lanier to a unified term of seven years, with
a minimum period of confinement of three years. However, the district court suspended the

1
Lanier was also found guilty of misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia; however,
he does not challenge this conviction or sentence on appeal.

1
sentence, placed Lanier in the drug court program, and on probation for seven years. Lanier
appeals, arguing that his underlying sentence is excessive.2
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, Lanier’s judgment of conviction and sentence
is affirmed.

2
Both appellant and respondent refer to Lanier’s sentence as an “underlying sentence.” We
will interpret the term “underlying” to mean “unified” as defined in Idaho Code § 19-2513.

2