State of Idaho v. Matthew Gene Ball

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52489

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 4, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
MATTHEW GENE BALL, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Valley
County. Hon. Jason D. Scott, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of six years, with a minimum period
of confinement of two years, for possession of a controlled substance, affirmed.

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

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

Before TRIBE, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Matthew Gene Ball pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance (Idaho Code
§ 37-2732(c)(1)). In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district
court sentenced Ball to a unified term of six years, with a minimum period of confinement of two
years.1 Ball appeals, arguing 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
This sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the sentence in Ball’s other unrelated
case.

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, Ball’s judgment of conviction and sentence are
affirmed.

2