State of Idaho v. David Lloyd Pearson

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52277

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) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Boundary County. Hon. Lamont C. Berecz, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum
period of confinement of five years, for trafficking in methamphetamine, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jacob L. Westerfield, 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
David Lloyd Pearson pled guilty to an amended charge of trafficking in methamphetamine,
Idaho Code § 37-2732B(a)(4)(A). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were
dismissed including an allegation that he is a persistent violator. The district court sentenced
Pearson to a unified term of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years.
Pearson filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied.1 Pearson appeals,
arguing that his sentence is excessive.

1
On appeal, Pearson does not challenge the district court’s denial of his Rule 35 motion for
reduction of sentence.

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

2