State of Idaho v. Guadalupe Guillen Moreno

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50085

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: October 26, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
GUADALUPE GUILLEN MORENO, ) 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. Thomas W. Whitney, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of three years, with a minimum period
of incarceration of two years, for felony driving under the influence of alcohol
(third or subsequent offense), affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kale D. Gans, Deputy Attorney General,
Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before LORELLO, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
and HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Guadalupe Guillen Moreno was found guilty of felony driving under the influence of
alcohol (third or subsequent offense), Idaho Code § 18-8004, and open container of alcohol by
driver, I.C. § 23-505(2). The district court imposed a unified sentence of three years, with a
minimum period of incarceration of two years, for driving under the influence. The district court
sentenced Moreno to 180 days of jail with credit for time served for open container. Moreno
appeals, contending that his DUI 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, Moreno’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2