State of Idaho v. Jace Russell Gant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50547

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: June 6, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JACE RUSSELL GANT, ) 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 S. Cawthorn, District Judge.

Withheld judgment of conviction for felony domestic violence or battery, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jacob L. Westerfield, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Jace Russell Gant entered an Alford1 plea to felony domestic battery or violence, Idaho
Code §§ 18-918(2), -903. In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed.
The district court imposed a withheld judgment and placed Gant on probation for a term of three
years. Gant appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive; specifically, Gant asserts the district
court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive probationary period.
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

1
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).
1
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, Gant’s withheld judgment of conviction and
sentence are affirmed.

2