State of Idaho v. Benjamin Michael Bryant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50671

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: January 16, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
BENJAMIN MICHAEL BRYANT, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Shoshone County. Hon. Barbara Duggan, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of confinement of two years, for possession of a controlled substance with the intent
to deliver, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A. Heffner,
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
Benjamin Michael Bryant pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance with the intent
to deliver. I.C. § 37-2732(a)(1)(A). In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was
dismissed. The district court sentenced Bryant to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum
period of confinement of two years, to be served concurrently with an unrelated sentence. Bryant
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, Bryant’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

2