State of Idaho v. Nancy Elisabeth Fordyce

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50467

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: February 29, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
NANCY ELISABETH FORDYCE, ) 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. Peter G. Barton, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of incarceration of two years, for vehicular manslaughter, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jacob L. Westerfield, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM
Nancy Elisabeth Fordyce pled guilty to vehicular manslaughter, Idaho Code § 18-
4006(3)(a). The district court imposed a unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of
incarceration of two years. Fordyce appeals, contending that her sentence is excessive and the
district court should have granted her probation.
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);

1
State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). That discretion includes
the trial court’s decision regarding whether a defendant should be placed on probation. I.C. § 19-
2601(3), (4); State v. Reber, 138 Idaho 275, 278, 61 P.3d 632, 635 (Ct. App. 2002); State v. Lee,
117 Idaho 203, 205-06, 786 P.2d 594, 596-97 (Ct. App. 1990). When reviewing the length of a
sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. The record in this case shows that the
district court properly considered the information before it and determined that probation was not
appropriate. Further, 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, Fordyce’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2