State of Idaho v. Steven Robert Kuschnick

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51868

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: December 1, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
STEVEN ROBERT KUSCHNICK, ) 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 suspended, unified sentence of five years, with a
minimum period of confinement of one year, for possession of a controlled
substance, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A. Heffner, 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
Steven Robert Kuschnick was found guilty of possession of a controlled substance, Idaho
Code § 37-2732(c).1 The district court sentenced Kuschnick to a unified term of five years, with
a minimum period of confinement of one year; however, the district court suspended the sentence
and placed him on probation for four years. Kuschnick appeals, arguing that his sentence is
excessive.

1
Kuschnick was also found guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia; however, he does
not challenge this conviction or sentence on 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, Kuschnick’s judgment of conviction and
sentence are affirmed.

2