Full Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 53686 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: November 5, 2026 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED JOHNNY DUPRE LAMBERT, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. John A. Cafferty, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and indeterminate sentence of five years for operating a vehicle without the owner’s consent, affirmed. Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ Before TRIBE, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge; and PETTY, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Johnny Dupre Lambert pled guilty to operating a vehicle without the owner’s consent, Idaho Code § 49-227.1 In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Lambert to an indeterminate term of five years. Lambert filed an Idaho 1 Lambert also pled guilty to and was sentenced for excessive driving under the influence; however, he does not challenge that judgment of conviction or sentence on appeal. 1 Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied.2 Lambert appeals, arguing 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 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, Lambert’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed. 2 On appeal, Lambert does not challenge the district court’s denial of his Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence. 2