State of Idaho v. Michael J. Shivers

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51185

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: December 31, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
MICHAEL J. SHIVERS, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Shoshone County. Hon. Barbara Duggan, 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 with the intent
to deliver, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Mark W. Olson, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Michael J. Shivers pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance with the intent to
deliver. I.C. § 37-2732(a)(1)(B). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were
dismissed including an allegation that he is a persistent violator. The district court sentenced
Shivers to a unified term of two years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year. Shivers
appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive and that the district court should have retained
jurisdiction or placed him on probation.

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, Shivers’ judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

2