State of Idaho v. Christine M. Bapties-Sterner

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50680

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: February 13, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
CHRISTINE M. BAPTIES-STERNER, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Elmore County. Hon. Theodore Fleming, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum
period of incarceration of five years, for trafficking in methamphetamine, 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 MELANSON, Judge Pro Tem
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Christine M. Bapties-Sterner pled guilty to trafficking in methamphetamine, Idaho Code
§ 37-2732B(a)(4)(B). In exchange for her guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The
district court imposed a unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of incarceration
of five years. Bapties-Sterner appeals, contending that her sentence, specifically the indeterminate
portion, 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
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, Bapties-Sterner’s judgment of conviction and
sentence are affirmed.

2