State of Idaho v. Terrence Lamond Johnson

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50536

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: November 21, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
TERRENCE LAMOND JOHNSON, ) 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. Samuel Hoagland, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum
period of confinement of four years, for delivery of a controlled substance,
affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Eric D. Fredericksen,
State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Amy J. Lavin, Deputy Attorney General,
Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
Terrence Lamond Johnson pled guilty to delivery of a controlled substance. I.C. § 37-
2732(a)(1)(A). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district
court sentenced Johnson to a unified term of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement
of four years. Johnson 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
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, Johnson’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

2