State of Idaho v. Matthew Lee Lipscomb

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50790

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 13, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
MATTHEW LEE LIPSCOMB, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Kootenai County. Hon. Barbara A. Duggan, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of confinement of three years, for felony injury to a child, affirmed.

Maya P. Waldron, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Matthew Lee Lipscomb entered an Alford1 plea to felony injury to a child. I.C. § 18-
1501(1). The district court sentenced Lipscomb to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum
period of confinement of three years. Lipscomb appeals, arguing that his 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-

1
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).

1
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, Lipscomb’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

2