Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Caribou County. Hon. Mitchell W. Brown, District Judge.
2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 663
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of eight years with three years determinate for delivery of marijuana, and ten years with three years determinate for trafficking in marijuana, affirmed.
Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and GUTIERREZ, Judge
Dennis Ray Hastings was convicted of delivery of marijuana, Idaho Code § 37- 2732(a)(1)(B), with a sentence enhancement for a second or subsequent offense, I.C. § 37-2739; and trafficking in marijuana, I.C. § 37-2732B(a)(1)(A). The district court sentenced Hastings to a unified term of eight years with three years determinate for delivery, and ten years with three years determinate for trafficking. Hastings appeals, contending 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). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.
Therefore, Hastings' judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...