State of Idaho v. Alberto Espinoza

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50379

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: July 10, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ALBERTO ESPINOZA, ) 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. Michael J. Reardon, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period
of incarceration of two years, for possession of a controlled substance, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley Heffner, 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; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Alberto Espinoza was found guilty of felony possession of a controlled substance, Idaho
Code § 37-2732(c), and misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia, I.C. § 37-2734A. For the
possession of a controlled substance conviction, the district court imposed a unified sentence of
five years, with a minimum period of incarceration of two years, and retained jurisdiction. After
completing the period of retained jurisdiction, Espinoza was placed on probation for three years.
On the misdemeanor conviction, the district court imposed concurrent thirty days of jail. Espinoza
appeals, contending that his underlying sentence is excessive.

1
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, Espinoza’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2