State of Idaho v. Brittany Arlene Jenkins

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51151

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: August 6, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
BRITTANY ARLENE JENKINS, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon
County. Hon. Brent L. Whiting, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fourteen years, with a minimum
period of confinement of four years, for felony aggravated driving under the
influence, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender; and Katherine C. Ball, Chelsea Wilson and Alex
Silveira, University of Idaho Legal Aid Clinic, 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
Brittany Arlene Jenkins entered an Alford1 plea to felony aggravated driving under the
influence. I.C. § 18-8006. In exchange for her guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed.
The district court sentenced Jenkins to a unified term of fourteen years, with a minimum period of

1
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).

1
confinement of four years. The district court retained jurisdiction and sent Jenkins to participate
in the rider program. Jenkins appeals, arguing that her 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-
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, Jenkins’ judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

2