State of Idaho v. Richard Alan Wilson

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51573

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: April 11, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
RICHARD ALAN WILSON, ) 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, concurrent sentences of eighteen and one-half
years, with minimum periods of confinement of four and one-half years, for two
counts of possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver; and
unified, concurrent sentences of eight and one-half years, with minimum periods of
confinement of four and one-half years, for two counts of unlawful possession of a
firearm, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy State
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
Richard Alan Wilson was found guilty of two counts of possession of a controlled
substance with the intent to deliver (Idaho Code § 37-2732(a)(1)(A)) and two counts of unlawful
possession of a firearm (I.C. § 18-3316).1 Wilson admitted to being a persistent violator (I.C.

1
Wilson was also found guilty of misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia; however, he
does not challenge this conviction or sentence on appeal.

1
§ 19-2514). The district court sentenced Wilson to unified terms of eighteen and one-half years,
with minimum periods of confinement of four and one-half years, for each count of possession of
a controlled substance; and unified terms of eight and one-half years, with minimum periods of
confinement of four and one-half years, for each count of possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon. Wilson appeals, arguing that his sentences are excessive.
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, Wilson’s judgment of conviction and sentences
are affirmed.

2