State of Idaho v. David Jordan Munz

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51640

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: April 29, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
DAVID JORDAN MUNZ, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonner
County. Hon. Lansing L. Haynes, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of three years, with a minimum period
of incarceration of one year, for felony possession of a controlled substance,
affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
David Jordan Munz pled guilty to felony possession of a controlled substance,
methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1).1 The district court imposed a unified sentence of
three years, with a minimum period of incarceration of one year, and retained jurisdiction. Munz
appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive.

1
Munz also pled guilty to misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia; that conviction is
not at issue in this appeal.
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, Munz’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2