State of Idaho v. Rachell Lynn Rudolph

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50271

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: October 2, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
RACHELL LYNN RUDOLPH, ) 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. Lynn G. Norton, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum
period of confinement of one and one-half years, for possession of a controlled
substance, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Emily M. Joyce,
Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy
Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before LORELLO, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
and HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Rachell Lynn Rudolph pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, Idaho Code
§ 37-2732(c)(1). In exchange for her guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district
court imposed a unified sentence of seven years with one and one-half years determinate to run
consecutively to other unrelated sentences. Rudolph filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion
which was denied.1 Rudolph appeals, contending that her sentence is excessive.

1
The denial of the Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion is not at issue in this appeal.
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, Rudolph’s judgment of conviction and
sentence are affirmed.

2