STATE OF IDAHO v. DAVID JOHN McDANIEL

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 49997

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 9, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
DAVID JOHN McDANIEL, ) 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. Patrick J. Miller, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction for two concurrent terms of twenty-five years with ten
years determinate for one count of conspiracy to traffic in methamphetamine and
one count of conspiracy to deliver and/or manufacture fentanyl, affirmed.

Silvey Law Office LTD; Greg S. Silvey, 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
David John McDaniel pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to traffic in
methamphetamine (Idaho Code §§ 37-2732B(a)(4)(B), 18-1701, 37-2732B(b)), and one count of
conspiracy to deliver and/or manufacture fentanyl (I.C. §§ 37-2732(a), 18-1701, 37-2732(f)). In
exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed two
concurrent terms of twenty-five years with ten years determinate. McDaniel appeals, contending
that his sentence is 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

1
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, McDaniel’s judgment of conviction and
sentence are affirmed.

2