State of Idaho v. Brady Leeray Dilworth

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 49869

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: February 28, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
BRADY LEERAY DILWORTH, ) 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. Lynn G. Norton, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period
of confinement of three years, for possession of a controlled substance and being a
persistent violator, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, 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
Brady Leeray Dilworth was found guilty of possession of a controlled substance. I.C. § 37-
2732(c). Dilworth also admitted to being a persistent violator. I.C. § 19-2514. The district court
sentenced Dilworth to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of three
years. Dilworth appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive.1

1
Dilworth was also found guilty of and sentenced for two misdemeanors. However, he does
not challenge his judgment of conviction and sentences with regard to the misdemeanors.

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, Dilworth’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

2