August 24, 2012
STATE OF IDAHO, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
JODY PATRICK TIEDEMANN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Michael E. Wetherell, District Judge.
2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 601
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Judgment of conviction and consecutive, unified sentence of ten years, with two years determinate, for failure to register as a sex offender, affirmed; judgment of conviction and concurrent, unified sentence of seven years, with three years determinate, for grand theft, affirmed.
Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and GUTIERREZ, Judge
In docket number 39475, Jody Patrick Tiedemann pled guilty to failure to register as a sex offender, Idaho Code §§ 18-8309, 18-8311. The district court sentenced Tiedemann to a unified term of ten years, with two years determinate, to run consecutively to Tiedemann's sentence in a prior case. In docket number 39476, Tiedemann pled guilty to grand theft, Idaho Code §§ 18-2403(1), 18-2407(1)(b). The district court sentenced Tiedemann to a unified term of seven years, with three years determinate, to run concurrently with his sentence in docket number 39475 and concurrently with his sentence in the prior case. Tiedemann appeals. The two cases have been consolidated on appeal.
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). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.
Therefore, Tiedemann's judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.