State of Idaho v. Robby L. Washington

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 49939

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: September 30, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ROBBY L. WASHINGTON, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon
County. Hon. Andrea Courtney, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and suspended, unified sentence of six years, with a
minimum period of confinement of two years, for possession of a controlled
substance, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, 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; LORELLO, Judge
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Robby L. Washington was found guilty of possession of a controlled substance, Idaho Code
§ 37-2732(c)(1).1 Pursuant to a judgment of conviction, the district court imposed a sentence of

1
Washington was also found guilty of misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia, I.C.
§ 37-2734A(1), but he does not challenge that judgment of conviction or sentence on appeal.

1
six years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years.2 The district court suspended the
sentence and placed Washington on probation. Washington 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, Washington’s judgment of conviction and
sentence are affirmed.

2
Pursuant to a post-conviction order, an amended judgment of conviction was entered. The
amended judgment allowed for an appeal, despite the failure of previous counsel to file a timely
appeal. The next day, a judgment after retained jurisdiction was entered with the only substantive
difference being that the period of probation increased from three years to three and one-half years.
Washington served a period of retained jurisdiction after originally being placed on probation. The
amended notice of appeal indicates that Washington is appealing from both judgments but he
makes no separate argument; therefore, this Court will only address the briefed issue, which is
Washington’s underlying sentence for possession of a controlled substance.

2