Court Opinion

ID: 4389416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-04-22 18:03:54.709437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:50:41.710392
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                       Docket No. 46525

STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )
                                                )   Filed: April 19, 2019
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )
                                                )   Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
v.                                              )
                                                )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
TONY RAY WISE,                                  )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
                                                )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
       Defendant-Appellant.                     )
                                                )

       Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,
       Bonneville County. Hon. Dane H. Watkins, Jr., District Judge.

       Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
       of confinement of one year, for possession of sexually exploitative
       material, affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM
       Tony Ray Wise pled guilty to possession of sexually exploitative material. Idaho Code
§ 18-1507(2)(a). The district court sentenced Wise to a unified term of ten years with one year
determinate. Wise appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an
excessive sentence.
       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-

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

                                                   2