State of Idaho v. Douglas Eric Simmons

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51015

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: April 2, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
DOUGLAS ERIC SIMMONS, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bannock County. Hon. Rick Carnaroli, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of confinement of five years, for burglary, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, 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
Douglas Eric Simmons entered an Alford1 plea to burglary, Idaho Code § 18-1401. In
exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a
unified term of ten years with five years determinate. Simmons filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35
motion which the district court denied.2 Simmons appeals, contending that his sentence is
excessive.

1
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).
2
The denial of Simmons’ Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion is not at issue in this appeal.
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, Simmons’ judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2