State of Idaho v. Henry Charles Smith

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 49845

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: November 6, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
HENRY CHARLES SMITH, ) 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 fifteen years, with a minimum
period of incarceration of five years, for felony driving under the influence
(previously found guilty of a prior felony within fifteen years) with a persistent
violator enhancement, 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; Mark W. Olson, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
Henry Charles Smith was found guilty of felony driving under the influence (previously
found guilty of a prior felony within fifteen years) (DUI), Idaho Code §§ 18-8004, -8005(9), and
driving without privileges, I.C. § 18-8001(1)(a). Next, Smith admitted to a persistent violator
enhancement, I.C. § 19-2514. The district court imposed a unified sentence of fifteen years, with
a minimum period of incarceration of five years, for the felony DUI with a persistent violator
enhancement. The district court imposed a sentence of 180-days jail, with credit for time served,

1
for driving without privileges. Smith appeals, contending that his sentence for felony DUI with a
persistent violator enhancement 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, Smith’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2