State of Idaho v. Danny E. Thompson

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51552

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: July 21, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
DANNY E. THOMPSON, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Boise
County. Hon. Theodore Fleming, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and determinate sentence of fifteen years for attempted first
degree murder, with a consecutive indeterminate sentence of five years for unlawful
possession of a firearm, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, 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 TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Danny E. Thompson was found guilty of attempted first degree murder, Idaho Code § 18-
4003(a) and unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, I.C. § 18-3316. The district
court imposed a determinate term of fifteen years for attempted first degree murder and a
consecutive sentence of five years indeterminate for lawful possession of a firearm, to run
consecutively to an unrelated sentence. Thompson appeals, contending that his sentence is
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, Thompson’s judgment of conviction and
sentence are affirmed.

2