State v. Chick

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 52203 & 52204

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: February 9, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
SCOTT THOMAS CHICK, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Gem
County. Hon. Brent L. Whiting, 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
concurrent, unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement
of five years, for burglary, affirmed; judgment of conviction and unified sentence
of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, for grand theft
by receiving, possessing or disposing of stolen property, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jacob L. Westerfield, 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
In these consolidated cases, Scott Thomas Chick pled guilty to possession of a controlled
substance, I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1); burglary, I.C. § 18-1401; and grand theft by receiving, possessing
or disposing of stolen property, I.C. § 18-2403(4). In exchange for his guilty pleas, additional
charges were dismissed including allegations that he is a persistent violator. The district court
sentenced Chick to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of two

1
years, for possession of a controlled substance; a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period
of confinement of five years, for burglary; and a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period
of confinement of five years, for grand theft by receiving, possessing or disposing of stolen
property. The district court ordered that Chick’s sentences be served concurrently. Chick 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, Chick’s judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed.

2