Court Opinion

ID: 4202446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-09-11 15:12:10.528403+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:10.877348
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                       Docket No. 44572

STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )   2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 577
                                                )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )   Filed: September 11, 2017
                                                )
v.                                              )   Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
                                                )
SEAN FRANCIS COX,                               )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
                                                )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
       Defendant-Appellant.                     )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
                                                )

       Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
       Bonneville County. Hon. Joel E. Tingey, District Judge.

       Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eight years, with a minimum period of
       confinement of one and one-half years, for burglary, affirmed.

       Eric D. Fredericksen, 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 GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
                                  and HUSKEY, Judge
                   ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
       Sean Francis Cox was found guilty of burglary, Idaho Code § 18-1401. The district court
imposed a unified eight-year sentence, with one and one-half years determinate. Cox appeals,
contending that his sentence is 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
1
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, Cox’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

                                                   2