State of Idaho v. Spencer Grant Bennett

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 49769

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: April 4, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
SPENCER GRANT BENNETT, ) 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. Michael J. Reardon, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent sentences of seven years with a minimum
period of confinement of one and one-half years for possession of
methamphetamine and ten years with one and one-half years determinate for
grand theft, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, 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
Spencer Grant Bennett pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-
2732(c) and grand theft, I.C. §§ 18-2403(1), 18-2407(1)(b), and 18-2409. In exchange for his
guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed concurrent sentences
of seven years with one and one-half years determinate for possession of methamphetamine and
ten years with one and one-half years determinate for grand theft. Bennett appeals, contending
that his sentences are 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, Bennett’s judgment of conviction and
sentences are affirmed.

2