State of Idaho v. Paul James Potts

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51708

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: November 10, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
PAUL JAMES POTTS, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Benewah County. Hon. Barbara Duggan, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years with a minimum
period of confinement of ten years for trafficking in methamphetamine, with a
persistent violator enhancement, 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 GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Paul James Potts was found guilty of trafficking in methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-
2732B(a)(4), misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance, I.C. § 37-2732(c)(3), and Potts
admitted to being a persistent violator, I.C. § 19-2514. The district court imposed a unified term
of twenty years with ten years determinate for the trafficking in methamphetamine charge and
persistent violator enhancement and awarded credit for time served for the misdemeanor

1
possession of a controlled substance charge.1 Potts appeals, contending that his 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, Potts’ judgment of conviction and sentence are
affirmed.

1
Potts does not appeal from the misdemeanor conviction and sentence.
2