State of Idaho v. David James Agee

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51306

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: February 24, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
DAVID JAMES AGEE, ) 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. James Cawthon, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and a unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period
of confinement of two years, for felony 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; John C. McKinney, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
David James Agee pled guilty to felony possession of a controlled substance. Idaho Code
§ 37-2732(c)(1). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district
court sentenced Agee to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of
two years, and retained jurisdiction. Agee filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the

1
district court denied.1 Agee appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive. More specifically,
that the district court should have placed him on probation.
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, Agee’s judgment of conviction and sentence are
affirmed.

1
On appeal, Agee does not challenge the district court’s denial of his Rule 35 motion for
reduction of his sentence.

2