Full Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 52810 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: November 13, 2026 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED JOSE GUADALUPE CORIA, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant.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. Derrick J. O’Neill, District Judge. Judgments of conviction and aggregate unified sentence of thirty years, with a minimum period of confinement of fifteen years, for trafficking in methamphetamine and possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver, affirmed. Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kierra W. Mai, 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 Jose Guadalupe Coria was found guilty of trafficking in methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-2732B(a)(4)(A), and possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver, I.C. § 37- 2732(a).1 The district court sentenced Coria to a unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum 1 Coria was also found guilty of misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c), and possession of drug paraphernalia, I.C. § 37-2734A. For each misdemeanor charge, the district court sentenced Coria to a term of 534 days in county jail, with 534 days of credit for time served. Although Coria notes that the misdemeanor sentences are illegal pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule 35(a), he does not challenge these sentences on appeal. 1 period of confinement of five years, for trafficking in methamphetamine and a unified sentence of thirty years, with a minimum period of confinement of fifteen years, for possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver. Coria appeals, arguing that his sentences are 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, Coria’s judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed. 2