State of Idaho v. Jeffrey Lamar Allison

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52553

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: January 30, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JEFFREY LAMAR ALLISON, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Joseph W. Borton, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of incarceration of three years, for burglary, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Abigael E. Schulz, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM
Jeffrey Lamar Allison pleaded guilty to burglary, Idaho Code § 18-1401. In exchange for
his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed including an allegation that he is a persistent
violator. The district court imposed a unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of
incarceration of three years, and ordered the sentence to run consecutively to the sentence in a
separate case. After a period of retained jurisdiction, the district court suspended the sentence and
placed Allison on probation. Subsequently, Allison admitted to violating the probation and the
district court continued Allison on probation. Thereafter, because probation was revoked in the
separate case, Allison filed a motion requesting the district court revoke probation in this case.

1
The district court granted Allison’s motion, revoked probation, and executed the underlying
sentence. Allison 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, Allison’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2