Full Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 53579 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: November 12, 2026 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED MELISSA CALUMPIT, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant.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. Randall S. Grove, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of life, with a minimum period of confinement of twenty-seven years, for first degree murder, affirmed. Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ Before LORELLO, Judge; FLEMING, Judge and PETTY, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Melissa Calumpit pled guilty to first degree murder, Idaho Code § 18-4001. In exchange for her guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court sentenced Calumpit to a unified sentence of life, with a minimum period of confinement of twenty-seven years. Calumpit appeals, arguing that her 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 1 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, Calumpit’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed. 2