State of Idaho v. Brad Allen Kiser

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50210

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: April 26, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
BRAD ALLEN KISER, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Lynn G. Norton, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years with a minimum
period of confinement of two years for possession of a controlled substance, and a
concurrent term of 180 days for providing false information to a police officer,
affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Emily M. Joyce, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before GRATTON, Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and BRAILSFORD, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Brad Allen Kiser entered an Alford1 plea to possession of a controlled, Idaho Code § 37-
2732(c)(1) and providing false information to law enforcement, I.C. §18-5413(2). In exchange
for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a unified
sentence of seven years with two years determinate on the possession charge and a concurrent

1
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).
1
sentence of 180 days for providing false information. Kiser appeals, contending that his
aggregate 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-
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, Kiser’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2