CourtListener 10855179•State of Idaho v. Steven Richard Johnson
State of Idaho v. Steven Richard Johnson
CourtListener 10855179Idahoctapp04.02.2025
Gesamter Gesetzestext
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 51629
STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: February 4, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
STEVEN RICHARD JOHNSON, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonner
County. Hon. Lamont C. Berecz, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of confinement of four years, for felony driving under the influence, affirmed.
Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________
Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Steven Richard Johnson pled guilty to felony driving under the influence. I.C. § 18-
8005(6). In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court
sentenced Johnson to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of four
years. Johnson appeals, arguing 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, 1014-
1
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, Johnson’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
2
Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.