State of Idaho v. Jeanine Ann Linton

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51673

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 20, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JEANINE ANN LINTON, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonner
County. Hon. Susie Jensen, District Judge.

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

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster, 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
Jeanine Ann Linton entered an Alford1 plea to possession of a controlled substance, Idaho
Code § 37-2732(c)(1), and pled guilty to misdemeanor charges of possession of a controlled
substance, I.C. § 37-2732(c)(3), and possession of paraphernalia, I.C. § 37-2734A(1). The district
court imposed a unified term of two years with one year determinate, credited Linton for time
served on the misdemeanors, and retained jurisdiction. Linton filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35

1
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).
1
motion which the district court denied.2 Following the period of retained jurisdiction, Linton was
placed on probation. Linton appeals, contending that her sentence is 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, Linton’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2
The denial of the Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion is not at issue in this appeal.
2