State of Idaho v. Lance Charles Garver

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 49943

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: June 12, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
LANCE CHARLES GARVER, ) 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. Patrick Miller, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and aggregate sentence of thirty years, with a minimum
period of incarceration of twenty years, for voluntary manslaughter and aggravated
battery, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Emily M. Joyce, 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
Lance Charles Garver pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter, Idaho Code § 18-4006(1),
and aggravated battery, I.C. §§ 18-903(1), -907(1)(a). In exchange, an additional charge and a
sentencing enhancement were dismissed. For each charge, the district court imposed a sentence
of fifteen years, with a minimum period of incarceration of ten years, with the sentences running
consecutively to each other. Garver appeals, contending that his sentences are 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

1
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, Garver’s judgment of conviction and sentences
are affirmed.

2