May 23, 2013
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent,
CRICKETT RACHEL RAY, Defendant-Appellant.
2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 511
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin Falls County. Hon. Randy J. Stoker, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for felony possession of marijuana, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Before LANSING, Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge.
Crickett Rachel Ray was convicted of felony possession of marijuana, Idaho Code § 37-2732(e). The district court sentenced Ray to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, suspended the sentence and placed Ray on supervised probation for two years with the condition that she successfully complete the Drug Court Program. Two weeks later, Ray violated her probation and consequently was not accepted into the Drug Court Program. The district court revoked probation and ordered execution of the underlying sentence. Ray appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in failing to sua sponte reduce her sentence upon revocation of probation.
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, Ray's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.