State of Idaho v. Miguel Angel Chavezamezcua

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50169

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: November 15, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
MIGUEL ANGEL CHAVEZ- ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
AMEZCUA, ) 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 sentence of seven years, with a minimum
period of confinement of two years, for possession of a controlled substance,
affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Jacob L. Westerfield,
Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM
Miguel Angel Chavez-Amezcua pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. I.C.
§ 37-2732(c)(1). The district court sentenced Chavez-Amezcua to a unified term of seven years,
with a minimum period of confinement of two years. The district court retained jurisdiction, but
thereafter relinquished jurisdiction. Chavez-Amezcua filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district
court denied. Chavez-Amezcua appeals, arguing that his sentence is 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, Chavez-Amezcua’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

2