State of Idaho v. Lisa Michelle Martin

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50908

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: July 16, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
LISA MICHELLE MARTIN, ) 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. Jason D. Scott, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent, unified sentences of two years, with a
minimum period of confinement of one year and three months, for forgery and
burglary, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, 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 TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Lisa Michelle Martin pled guilty to forgery, Idaho Code § 18-3601, and burglary,
I.C. § 18-1401. In exchange for her guilty pleas, additional charges were dismissed. The district
court imposed concurrent, unified sentences of two years, with a minimum period of confinement

1
of one year and three months. Martin filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district
court denied.1 Martin appeals, arguing that her 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
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, Martin’s judgment of conviction and sentences
are affirmed.

1
On appeal, Martin does not challenge the district court’s denial of her Rule 35
motion for reduction of her sentence.

2