50244/50245 State v. Haskell

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 50243/50244/50245

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: December 28, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
SHAWN REX HASKELL, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin
Falls County. Hon. Benjamin J. Cluff, District Judge.

Judgments of conviction and aggregate unified sentence of twenty years, with a
minimum period of incarceration of seven years, for three counts of felony driving
under the influence of alcohol, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Jacob L. Westerfield,
Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before LORELLO, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
and HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Pursuant to a plea agreement in three consolidated cases, Shawn Rex Haskell pled guilty
to one count of driving under the influence of alcohol (previously found guilty of a prior felony
within fifteen years), Idaho Code § 18-8005(9), in each case. In exchange for his guilty pleas,
additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed an aggregate unified sentence of
twenty years, with a minimum period of incarceration of seven years. Haskell appeals, contending
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 records in these cases, we cannot say
that the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Haskell’s judgments of conviction and
sentences are affirmed.

2