State of Idaho v. Nathan Tyler Wiebelhaus

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51219

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: July 31, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
NATHAN TYLER WIEBELHAUS, ) 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. Jason D. Scott, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of four years, with a minimum period
of confinement of one and one-half years, for possession of a controlled substance,
affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster, 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
Nathan Tyler Wiebelhaus entered an Alford1 plea to possession of a controlled substance.
I.C. § 37-2732(c). In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed and the
State agreed not to file an allegation that Wiebelhaus is a persistent violator The district court

1
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).

1
sentenced Wiebelhaus to a unified term of four years, with a minimum period of confinement of
one and one-half years. Wiebelhaus appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive.
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, Wiebelhaus’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

2