Court Opinion

ID: 4034861
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-19 15:06:18.400294+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:57:36.208917
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                       Docket No. 43731

STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )   2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 694
                                                )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )   Filed: September 19, 2016
                                                )
v.                                              )   Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
                                                )
DUSTIN JACK HOWELL,                             )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
                                                )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
       Defendant-Appellant.                     )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
                                                )

       Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
       County. Hon. Deborah A. Bail, District Judge.

       Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of
       confinement of one year, for battery on a police officer or sheriff, affirmed.

       Eric D. Fredericksen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C.
       Swinford, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

                      Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
                                 and HUSKEY, Judge
                  ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
       Dustin Jack Howell was found guilty of battery on a police officer or sheriff, Idaho Code
§§ 18-915(a), 903(a). The district court imposed a unified five-year sentence, with one year
determinate. Howell 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.
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,

                                                1
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, Howell’s judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed.

                                                     2