State of Idaho v. James Edward Snapp

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52317

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: October 1, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JAMES EDWARD SNAPP, ) 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. Joseph W. Borton, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent, unified sentences of fourteen years, with a
minimum period of confinement of five years, for trafficking in methamphetamine
and determinate term of five years for unlawful possession of a firearm, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
James Edward Snapp pled guilty to trafficking in methamphetamine, I.C. § 37-
2732B(a)(4), and unlawful possession of a firearm, I.C. § 18-3316(1). In exchange for his guilty
plea, additional charges were dismissed and the State agreed not to pursue an allegation that Snapp
is a persistent violator. The district court sentenced Snapp to a unified term of fourteen years, with

1
a minimum period of confinement of five years, and a concurrent determinate term of five years
for unlawful possession of a firearm. Snapp appeals, arguing that his sentences are 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, Snapp’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

1
Snapp also pled guilty to and was sentenced for driving under the influence. However, he
does not challenge that judgment of conviction and sentence on appeal.

2