State of Idaho v. Crystal Lynn Schrecengost

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52455

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: November 17, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
CRYSTAL LYNN SCHRECENGOST, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, State of Idaho, Nez
Perce County. Hon. Michelle M. Evans, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent, unified sentences of seven years, with
minimum periods of confinement of three years, for two counts of 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; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Crystal Lynn Schrecengost entered an Alford1 plea to one count of possession of a
controlled substance and pled guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance. I.C.
§ 37-2732(c)(1). In exchange for her guilty pleas, the State dismissed an allegation that
Schrecengost was a persistent violator and agreed to dismiss probation violations in two unrelated

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

1
cases. The district court sentenced Schrecengost to concurrent, unified terms of seven years, with
minimum periods of confinement of three years. Schrecengost appeals, arguing that her sentences
are 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, Schrecengost’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.

2