State of Idaho v. Darrell Lloyd Carter

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52318

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: November 24, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
DARRELL LLOYD CARTER, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Franklin County. Hon. Cody L. Brower, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified term of eight years, with a minimum period of
incarceration of four years for delivery of a controlled substance; affirmed; case
remanded for corrections to and distribution of presentence investigation report.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A. Heffner, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Allison C. Jaros, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
Darrell Lloyd Carter pleaded guilty to delivery of a controlled substance, Idaho Code § 37-
2732(a)(1)(A); a persistent violator enhancement was dismissed in exchange for Carter’s guilty
plea. At the sentencing hearing, Carter informed the district court of an error in the presentence
investigation report (PSI). The district court agreed to make the corrections; however, there is no
notation or addendum reflecting the changes in the record. The district court sentenced Carter to
a unified term of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years. Carter appeals,

1
contending that the district court abused its discretion in failing to redline the errors in the PSI and
by imposing an excessive sentence.
Carter requests that this Court remand this case to the district court to ensure that the
corrections to the PSI are reflected in the PSI and that a corrected copy of the PSI is distributed to
the Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC). The State agrees to a limited remand to the district
court. Consequently, we remand this case to the district court for the limited purpose of ensuring
that the corrections to the PSI are redlined, a copy of the redlined PSI is made part of the district
court’s record, and the redlined PSI report is transmitted to IDOC in accordance with Idaho
Criminal Rule 32. See State v. Greer, 171 Idaho 555, 563, 524 P.3d 386, 394 (2023).
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.
The parties agree that a remand for the limited purpose of ensuring the corrections are
reflected in the PSI and distributed to IDOC is appropriate. Carter’s judgment of conviction and
sentence are affirmed. Case remanded for corrections to and distribution of PSI.

2