State of Idaho v. Shelby Gale Burns

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52145

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: December 5, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
SHELBY GALE BURNS, ) 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. Nancy A. Baskin, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eleven years, with a minimum
period of confinement of four years, for trafficking in methamphetamine, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Stacey M. Donohue, 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
Shelby Gale Burns pled guilty to trafficking in methamphetamine, Idaho Code
§ 37-2732B(a)(4)(A). In exchange for her guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The
district court sentenced Burns to a unified term of eleven years, with a minimum period of
confinement of four years.1 Burns filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court
denied.2 Burns appeals, arguing that her sentence is excessive.

1
This sentence was ordered to run concurrently “with all other holds.”
2
On appeal, Burns does not challenge the district court’s denial of her Rule 35 motion for
reduction of sentence.

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, Burns’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2