State of Idaho v. Jacob Lansing Utter

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51271

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: September 4, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JACOB LANSING UTTER, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

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

Judgment of conviction of conviction and concurrent, unified sentences of four
years, with minimum periods of confinement of two years, for possession of a
controlled substance and burglary, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Jacob Lansing Utter pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, I.C. § 37-
2732(c)(1), and burglary, I.C. § 18-1401. In exchange for his guilty pleas, additional charges were
dismissed including an allegation that he is a persistent violator. The district court sentenced Utter
to concurrent, unified terms of four years, with minimum periods of confinement of two years.
Utter filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Utter appeals, arguing 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, Utter’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

2