State of Idaho v. Edward Silas Conlon

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51114

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 20, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
EDWARD SILAS CONLON, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon
County. Hon. Randall S. Grove, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of thirty years, with a minimum period
of confinement of twelve years, for felony driving under the influence and being a
persistent violator, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender; and Katherine Ball, Noah Endicott and Patsy Tucker,
University of Idaho Legal Aid Clinic, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Edward Silas Conlon pled guilty to felony driving under the influence, I.C. § 18-8005(9),
and admitted to being a persistent violator, I.C. § 19-2514. In exchange for his guilty plea, an
additional charge was dismissed. The district court sentenced Conlon to a unified term of thirty
years, with a minimum period of confinement of twelve years. Conlon appeals, arguing that his
sentence is 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, Conlon’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed

2