May 23, 2013
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent,
LARRY WARD CRAGUN, Defendant-Appellant.
2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 513
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. Benjamin R. Simpson, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and concurrent sentences of a unified term of life, with thirty years determinate, for murder of the first degree; a determinate term of fifteen years for attempted murder; and determinate terms of fifteen years for two counts of aggravated battery, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge
Larry Ward Cragun pled guilty to murder of the first degree, Idaho Code § 18-4001; attempted murder, I.C. § 18-4001; and two counts of aggravated battery, I.C. § 18-907. The district court sentenced Cragun to a unified term of life, with thirty years determinate, for the murder of the first degree conviction and a determinate term of fifteen years for each of the remaining convictions. The district court also ordered the sentences to run concurrent with each other. Cragun appeals, contending 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, Cragun's judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.