State of Idaho v. Cody Brian Wade

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50791

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 20, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
CODY BRIAN WADE, ) 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. Roger B. Harris, District Judge.

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

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, 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
Cody Brian Wade pled guilty to felony possession of a controlled substance and a
misdemeanor charge of possession of drug paraphernalia, Idaho Code §§ 37-2732(c)(1), 37-
2734A(1). The district court imposed a unified term of seven years with two and one-half years
determinate for the possession charge and a concurrent term of 180 days in jail for the drug
paraphernalia charge. Wade filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reconsideration of the
sentence which was denied.1 Wade appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive because the

1
The denial of the Rule 35 motion is not at issue in this appeal.
1
district court should have suspended his sentence with the condition that he participate in Mental
Health Court.
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, Wade’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2