Full Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 53635 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: November 12, 2026 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED CARLA VANESSA RAMIREZ, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bingham County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for felony intimidation of a witness, affirmed. Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Abigael E. Schulz, 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; FLEMING, Judge and PETTY, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Carla Vanessa Ramirez pled guilty to felony intimidation of a witness, Idaho Code § 18- 2604(3).1 In exchange for her guilty plea, an additional charge that she is a persistent violator was dismissed. The district court sentenced Ramirez to a unified sentence of five years, with a 1 Ramirez also pled guilty to misdemeanor battery, Idaho Code § 18-903(a); that conviction is not at issue in this appeal. 1 minimum period of confinement of two years. Ramirez appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive.2 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, Ramirez’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed. 2 Ramirez filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, which the district court denied. The denial of Ramirez’s I.C.R. 35 motion is not at issue in this appeal. 2