Court Opinion

ID: 880964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-06-05 00:42:19.797436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:24.574925
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                       Docket No. 40277

STATE OF IDAHO,                                  )     2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 510
                                                 )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                     )     Filed: May 23, 2013
                                                 )
v.                                               )     Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
                                                 )
PAUL EDWARD BUSHLOW,                             )     THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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,
       Bannock County. Hon. Robert C. Naftz, District Judge.

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

       Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, 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; LANSING, Judge;
                                 and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM
       Paul Edward Bushlow was convicted of possession of sexually exploitative materials,
Idaho Code § 18-1507A(2). The district court sentenced Bushlow to a unified term of ten years,
with a minimum period of confinement of three years. Bushlow 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.

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

                                                   2