51438 State v. Dewitt

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 51437 & 51438

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 12, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
DIRCK HUNTER DEWITT, JR., ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Kootenai County. Hon. John T. Mitchell, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified, consecutive sentence of seven years, with a
minimum period of confinement of three years, for possession of a controlled
substance in Docket No. 51437, affirmed; judgment of conviction and unified,
consecutive sentence of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of
three years, for possession of a controlled substance in Docket No. 51438, affirmed.

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

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Elizabeth H. Estess, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
This appeal involves two consolidated cases. In Docket No. 51437, Dirck Hunter Dewitt,
Jr. pled guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance. Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1).
In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed including an allegation that he
is a persistent violator. The district court sentenced Dewitt to a unified term of seven years, with
a minimum period of confinement of three years, and retained jurisdiction. In Docket No. 51438,
Dewitt pled guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance. I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1). In
exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed and the State agreed not to file a

1
persistent violator enhancement. The district court sentenced Dewitt to a unified term of seven
years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, and retained jurisdiction.1 Dewitt
appeals, arguing that his sentences are excessive.
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 records in these cases, we cannot say
that the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Dewitt’s judgments of conviction and
sentences are affirmed.

1
The sentences in Docket Nos. 51437 and 51438 were ordered to run consecutively to each
other.

2