February 25, 2014
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent,
ANDREW LOUIS VERRINDER, Defendant-Appellant.
2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 391
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 unified sentences of twelve years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for one count of lewd conduct with a minor child under sixteen; and unified twelve years with a minimum period of confinement of two years for one count of enticing a child through use of the Internet, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge.
Andrew Louis Verrinder pled guilty to one count of lewd conduct with a minor child under sixteen, Idaho Code § 18-1508 and one count of enticing a child through use of the Internet, Idaho Code § 18-1509A. The district court sentenced Verrinder to concurrent unified sentences of twelve years with two years determinate for each count. Verrinder appeals, asserting that the district court abused its discretion when it imposed the sentences.
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, Verrinder's judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.