State of Idaho v. Chandra Alyssa Ortiz

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50230

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: August 18, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
CHANDRA ALYSSA ORTIZ, ) 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. Peter G. Barton, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of incarceration of five years, for trafficking in methamphetamine, and a unified
sentence of five years, with a minimum period of incarceration of one year, for
unlawful possession of a firearm, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, 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
Chandra Alyssa Ortiz pled guilty to trafficking in methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-
2732(a)(4)(A), and unlawful possession of a firearm, I.C. § 18-3316. In exchange for his guilty
plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a unified sentence of ten years,
with a minimum period of incarceration of five years, for trafficking in methamphetamine, and a
unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of incarceration of one year, for unlawful
possession of a firearm, with the sentences to run concurrently. Ortiz appeals, contending that her
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 record in this case, we cannot say that
the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Ortiz’s judgment of conviction and sentence are
affirmed.

2