State of Idaho v. MARK WILLIAM GUSTAFSON

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 53167

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 27, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
MARK WILLIAM GUSTAFSON, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonner
County. Hon. Lamont C. Berecz, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum
period of confinement of two years, for felony driving under the influence,
affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before TRIBE, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Mark William Gustafson pled guilty to felony driving under the influence. I.C. § 18-
8005(6). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court
sentenced Gustafson to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of
two years. Gustafson appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive and that the district court
should have placed him on probation.
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

1
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).
The goal of probation is to foster the probationer’s rehabilitation while protecting public
safety. State v. Cheatham, 159 Idaho 856, 858, 367 P.3d 251, 253 (Ct. App. 2016). A decision to
deny probation will not be deemed an abuse of discretion if it is consistent with the criteria
articulated in I.C. § 19-2521.
Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that
the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Gustafson’s judgment of conviction and
sentence are affirmed.

2