State of Idaho v. Joshua Kerns Lundquist

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51819

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: January 27, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JOSHUA KERNS LUNDQUIST, ) 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 fifteen years, with a minimum
period of confinement of eight years, for possession of a controlled substance with
persistent violator enhancement, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kierra W. Mai, 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; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Joshua Kerns Lundquist pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance (fentanyl),
Idaho Code § 37-2732(c) with a persistent violator enhancement, I.C. § 19-2514. In exchange for
his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a unified term of
fifteen years with eight years determinate. Lundquist appeals, contending 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

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, Lundquist’s judgment of conviction and
sentence are affirmed.

2