State of Idaho v. James Ronald Bea, III

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50149

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: July 26, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JAMES RONALD BEA, III, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin
Falls County. Hon. Benjamin J. Cluff, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum
period of incarceration of four years, for possession of a controlled substance,
affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, 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
James Ronald Bea, III, was found guilty of felony possession of a controlled substance
methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1), and misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia,
I.C. § 37-2734A(1). The district court imposed a unified sentence of seven years, with four years
determinate, for possession of a controlled substance, and one year for possession of paraphernalia
to run concurrently. Bea appeals, contending that his seven-year sentence, with four years
determinate, 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, Bea’s judgment of conviction and sentence are
affirmed.

2