State of Idaho v. Keigan Todd Johnson

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51966

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 25, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
KEIGAN TODD JOHNSON, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon
County. Hon. Gene A. Petty, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of confinement of four years, for felony driving under the influence, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kierra W. Mai, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
Keigan Todd Johnson pled guilty to felony driving under the influence, Idaho Code § 18-
8005(6). In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed and the State agreed
not to seek a sentencing enhancement.1 The district court imposed a unified term of ten years with
four years determinate. Johnson appeals, contending that his sentence is 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

1
Johnson also pled guilty to driving without privileges, however Johnson does not appeal
that conviction and sentence.
1
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, Johnson’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2