State of Idaho v. Jalene Brooke Powaukee

CourtListener 10854967Idahoctapp29 sept. 2025

Texte intégral

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51833

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: September 29, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JALENE BROOKE POWAUKEE, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, State of Idaho, Nez
Perce County. Hon. Mark Monson, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of thirty years, with a minimum period
of incarceration of ten years, for involuntary manslaughter, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A. Heffner, 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 LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Jalene Brooke Powaukee was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, Idaho Code § 18-
4006(2), and of being a persistent violator, I.C. § 19-2514. The district court imposed a unified
sentence of thirty years, with a minimum period of incarceration of ten years, to run concurrently
to another sentence in an unrelated case. Powaukee appeals, contending that her 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);

1
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, Powaukee’s judgment of conviction and
sentence are affirmed.

2

Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude

Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.