State of Idaho v. Tyson Greene Mitchell

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50233

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 26, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
TYSON GREENE MITCHELL, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bonneville County. Hon. Bruce L. Pickett, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty-five years, with a minimum
period of confinement of five years, for possession of a controlled substance with
the intent to manufacture or deliver, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, 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
Tyson Greene Mitchell pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance with the intent
to manufacture or deliver. I.C. § 37-2732(a)(1)(A). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional
charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Mitchell to a unified term of twenty-five
years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years. Mitchell filed an I.C.R. 35 motion,
which the district court denied. Mitchell 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, Mitchell’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

2