State of Idaho v. Porshia Patricia Ann Hartman

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50718

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: January 29, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
PORSHIA PATRICIA ANN HARTMAN, ) 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 concurrent, unified sentences of eighteen years, with a
minimum period of incarceration of three years, for delivery of a controlled
substance and possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, 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
Porshia Patricia Ann Hartman pled guilty to delivery of a controlled substance, fentanyl,
Idaho Code § 37-2732(a)(1)(A), and possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver,
I.C. § 37-2732(a)(1)(A). In exchange for her guilty pleas, additional charges were dismissed. For
each charge, the district court imposed a unified sentence of eighteen years, with a minimum period
of incarceration of three years, and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Hartman appeals,
contending that her sentences are 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, Hartman’s judgment of conviction and sentences
are affirmed.

2