Court Opinion

ID: 4409586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-06-24 17:04:11.573493+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:45:28.944069
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                       Docket No. 46529

STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )
                                                )   Filed: June 24, 2019
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )
                                                )   Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
v.                                              )
                                                )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JEFFREY SAMUEL SUPP,                            )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
                                                )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
       Defendant-Appellant.                     )
                                                )

       Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
       Kootenai County. Hon. John T. Mitchell, District Judge.

       Judgment of conviction and unified life sentence, with a minimum period of
       confinement of fifteen years, for lewd conduct with a minor under the age of
       sixteen, affirmed.

       Charles C. Crafts; Crafts Law Office, Boise, for appellant.

       Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney
       General, Boise, for respondent.
                 ________________________________________________

                        Before HUSKEY Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
                                and BRAILSFORD, Judge
                  ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
       Jeffrey Samuel Supp pleaded guilty to lewd conduct with a minor under the age of
sixteen, Idaho Code § 18-1508. The district court imposed a unified life sentence, with fifteen
years determinate. Supp 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

                                                1
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, Supp’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

                                                   2