Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bannock County. Hon. David C. Nye, District Judge.
2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 330
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Judgments of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of seven years with minimum periods of confinement of three years, for grand theft by possession of stolen property, affirmed.
Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge
In these consolidated cases, Robert Michael Adams was convicted of two counts of grand theft by possession of stolen property, Idaho Code §§ 18-2403(4), 18-2407(1). The district court sentenced Adams to concurrent unified terms of seven years with minimum periods of confinement of three years and retained jurisdiction. Shortly thereafter, the district court relinquished jurisdiction and ordered execution of Adams' sentences. Adams 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, Adams' judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw ...