State of Idaho v. Kristin Ann Chadwick Martinez

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50587

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: February 15, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
KRISTIN ANN CHADWICK ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
MARTINEZ, ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Roger S. Burdick, Senior District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eight years, with a minimum
period of confinement of three years, for possession of a controlled substance,
affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, 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
Kristin Ann Chadwick Martinez was found guilty of possession of a controlled substance,
Idaho Code § 37-2732(c) and possession of drug paraphernalia, I.C. §37-2734A. Chadwick
admitted to a persistent violator enhancement. The district court imposed a unified term of eight
years with three years determinate for possession of a controlled substance, time served for
possession of drug paraphernalia, and retained jurisdiction. Chadwick appeals, contending that
her sentence is excessive.

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, Chadwick’s judgment of conviction and
sentence are affirmed.

2