State v. Ramirez

Oct 5, 2026
52989
Reporters:
Before:
Tribe, Lorello, Fleming (per curiam)

PER CURIAM

David Ramirez was found guilty of felony domestic battery, Idaho Code § 18-918, and felony possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1).1 Following the jury‘s guilty verdict, Ramirez agreed to plead guilty to the domestic battery sentencing enhancement, I.C. § 18-918, and the State agreed to dismiss the persistent violator sentencing enhancement, I.C. § 19-2514. The district court sentenced Ramirez to a unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years, for the domestic battery charge and a consecutive unified sentence of four years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year, for the possession of methamphetamine charge. Ramirez 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, Ramirez‘s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.

Notes

1
Ramirez was also found guilty of misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance, marijuana, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(3), and possession of drug paraphernalia, I.C. § 37-2734A; those convictions are not at issue in this appeal.