October 31, 2012
STATE OF IDAHO, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
DANIEL EUGENE NICHOLS,
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. Lansing L. Haynes, District Judge.
2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 693
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of twenty-five years, with minimum periods of confinement of fifteen years, for two counts sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen enhanced as a repeat sex offender, affirmed.
Before LANSING, Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge
Daniel Eugene Nichols was found guilty of two counts of sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen, enhanced for being a repeat sex offender . I.C. §§ 18-1506, 19-2520G(2).
The district court sentenced Nichols to concurrent unified terms of twenty-five years, with minimum periods of confinement of fifteen years.*fn1 Nichols appeals, asserting that his indeterminate 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, Nichols's judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.