State of Idaho v. Monica Mae Lacy

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 49834

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: February 13, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
MONICA MAE LACY, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Samuel Hoagland, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and aggregate, unified sentence of fourteen years, with a
minimum period of incarceration of four years, for grand theft, burglary, and grand
theft by possession of stolen property, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Mark W. Olson, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
Monica Mae Lacy was found guilty of grand theft, Idaho Code § 18-2403(1), grand theft
by possession of stolen property, I.C. § 18-2403(4), and burglary, I.C. § 18-1401. For each grand
theft charge, the district court imposed a unified sentence of fourteen years, with a minimum period
of incarceration of four years, and for the burglary charge, the district court imposed a unified
sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of incarceration of four years. The sentences were
ordered to run concurrently. Lacy appeals, contending that her sentences are excessive.

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

2