State of Idaho v. Cameron James Ahrens

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52036

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: April 29, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
CAMERON JAMES AHRENS, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bannock County. Hon. Rick Carnaroli, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty-five years with a minimum
period of confinement of twelve years for possession of a controlled substance with
intent to deliver and concurrent, determinate sentence of five years for eluding a
peace officer, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Stacey M. Donohue, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM
Cameron James Ahrens pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to
deliver and eluding a peace officer, Idaho Code §§ 37-2732(a)(1)(A), 49-1404(2). In exchange
for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed including an allegation that he is a persistent
violator. The district court imposed a unified term of twenty-five years with twelve years
determinate for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and a concurrent, unified
term of five years determinate for eluding a peace officer. Ahrens 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, Ahrens’ judgment of conviction and sentences
are affirmed.

2