State of Idaho v. David Bryan Ambrose

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50574

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: December 18, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
DAVID BRYAN AMBROSE, ) 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. Cynthia Yee-Wallace, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of incarceration of four years, for felony driving under the influence (two or more
convictions within ten years), affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster,
Deputy 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
David Bryan Ambrose pled guilty to felony operating a motor vehicle while under the
influence of alcohol (two or more convictions within ten years), Idaho Code §§ 18-8004, -8005(6).
In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a
unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years. Ambrose then
filed a pro se Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion which the district court denied. Ambrose appeals,
contending that his sentence is excessive, especially when considering the information provided
in support of his Rule 35 motion.

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

2