State of Idaho v. Dragos Ungurean

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 49866

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 1, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
DRAGOS UNGUREAN, ) 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. Peter G. Barton, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent, unified sentences of fifteen years, with a
minimum period of confinement of five years, for conspiracy to
deliver/manufacture a controlled substance and five years, with a minimum period
of confinement of two years, for unlawful possession of a firearm, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before LORELLO, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
and BRAILSFORD, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Dragos Ungurean pled guilty to conspiracy deliver/manufacture a controlled substance,
I.C. §§ 37-2732(a), 18-1701, and 37-2732(f); and unlawful possession of a firearm, I.C. §§ 18-
3316 and 18-204. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district
court sentenced Ungurean to concurrent, unified terms of fifteen years, with a minimum period of
confinement of five years, for conspiracy to deliver/manufacture a controlled substance and five

1
years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for unlawful possession of a firearm.
Ungurean appeals, arguing that his sentences are 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, Ungurean’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.

2