State of Idaho v. Carmen Martinez

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51280

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: July 15, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
CARMEN MARTINEZ, ) 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. George A. Southworth, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and indeterminate sentence of one year for introduction of
contraband into a correctional facility, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Carmen Martinez pled guilty to introduction of contraband into a correctional facility. I.C.
§ 18-2510(3). In exchange for her guilty plea, an additional charge that she is a persistent violator
was dismissed. The district court sentenced Martinez to an indeterminate term of one year to run
“consecutive to any sentence previously imposed” but retained jurisdiction “to run concurrently
with any other cases” in which Martinez was “sentenced to a period of retained jurisdiction.”
Martinez appeals, arguing that her 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, Martinez’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

2