State v. Diamond

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 52779 & 52782

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 4, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
MICHELLE COLLETTE DIAMOND, ) 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. Patrick J. Miller, District Judge.

Judgments of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum
period of confinement of five years, for possession of a controlled substance and
being a persistent violator and concurrent, unified sentence of ten years, with a
minimum period of confinement of five years, for trafficking in methamphetamine,
affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kierra W. Mai, 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; GRATTON, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
In these consolidated cases, Michelle Collette Diamond pled guilty to possession of a
controlled substance, I.C. § 37-2732(c); being a persistent violator, I.C. § 19-2514; and trafficking
in methamphetamine, I.C. § 37-2732B(a)(4)(A). In exchange for her guilty pleas, additional
charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Diamond to a unified term of seven years,
with a minimum period of confinement of five years, for possession of a controlled substance and

1
being a persistent violator and concurrent, unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of
confinement of five years, for trafficking in methamphetamine. Diamond filed I.C.R. 35 motions
for reduction of her sentences, which the district court denied. Diamond appeals, arguing 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, Diamond’s judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed.

1
Diamond also pled guilty to and was sentenced for several misdemeanors. Diamond does
not challenge these judgments of conviction and sentences on appeal.

2