Full Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 52869 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: November 5, 2026 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED JOSEPH DANIEL WALKER, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Elmore County. Hon. Theodore Fleming, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, for possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver, affirmed. Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, 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; PETTY, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge Pro Tem ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Joseph Daniel Walker pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver, Idaho Code § 37-2732(a).1 The district court sentenced Walker to a unified term of fifteen 1 Walker also pled guilty to and was sentenced for misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia; however, he does not challenge that judgment of conviction or sentence on appeal. 1 years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years.2 Walker 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, Walker’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed. 2 This sentence was ordered to “run concurrently with any other sentence [Walker] is currently serving.” 2