State of Idaho v. Brett Charles Sears

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51174

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: August 28, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
BRETT CHARLES SEARS, ) 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. Susie Jensen, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified concurrent sentences of twenty years, with a
minimum period of incarceration of four years, for grand theft and eluding,
affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny Swinford, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender; and Katherine C. Ball, Sean M. Falconer, and
Cooper O. Neavill, University of Idaho Legal Aid Clinic, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Brett Charles Sears pled guilty to aiding and abetting grand theft, Idaho Code § 18-
2407(1)(b)(1), and eluding, I.C. § 49-1404(2), and admitted he was a persistent violator, I.C. § 19-
2514. In exchange for his guilty pleas, additional charges were dismissed. The district court

1
imposed concurrent unified sentences of twenty years, with a minimum period of incarceration of
four years.1 Sears 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
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, Sears’s judgment of conviction and sentences
are affirmed.

1
Although the judgment of conviction does not reflect that the sentences in this case were
enhanced pursuant to Idaho Code § 19-2514, that is the only way the sentences would be legal, as
the maximum sentence for grand theft is fourteen years, and the maximum sentence for eluding is
five years. Sears does not argue on appeal that his sentences are illegal.
2