State v. Lefevre

1
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 53066
STATE OF IDAHO,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
AUBREY LYNN LEFEVRE,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Filed: October 15, 2026
Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
OPINION AND SHALL NOT
BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bingham County. Hon. Stevan H. Thompson, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of six years, with a minimum period
of confinement of three years, for felony possession of a controlled substance,
affirmed.
Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________
Before TRIBE, Chief Judge; FLEMING, Judge
and PETTY, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Aubrey Lynn Lefevre was found guilty of felony possession of a controlled substance,
methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1).1 The district court sentenced Lefevre to a unified
sentence of six years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, suspended the
1 Lefevre was also found guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia, Idaho Code § 37-
2734A(1); that conviction is not at issue in this appeal.

2
sentence, and placed Lefevre on a term of probation of three years. Lefevre appeals, arguing that
her underlying sentence is excessive.2
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, Lefevre’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
2 While this matter was pending appeal, Lefevre twice admitted to violating the terms and
conditions of her probation. In March 2026, the district court subsequently revoked probation and
imposed Lefevre’s sentence but retained jurisdiction. The court’s decision revoking probation and
retaining jurisdiction is not challenged in this appeal.