State of Idaho v. Drew Douglas Cole

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50668

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: November 28, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
DREW DOUGLAS COLE, ) 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. Derrick J. O’Neill, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of confinement of five years, for felony driving under the influence, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford,
Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
Drew Douglas Cole pled guilty to felony driving under the influence. I.C. §§ 18-8004 and
18-8005(9). In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed, and the State
agreed not to pursue a sentencing enhancement. The district court sentenced Cole to a unified
term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, to be served concurrently
with an unrelated sentence. Cole filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Cole
appeals, arguing that his sentence is 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, Cole’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

2