Court Opinion

ID: 891051
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-06-05 15:35:14.74078+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:36.098181
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                       Docket No. 37252

STATE OF IDAHO,                                  )     2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 599
                                                 )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                     )     Filed: August 18, 2010
                                                 )
v.                                               )     Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
                                                 )
MELVIN J. HEBDON,                                )     THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. David C. Nye, District Judge.

       Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum
       period of confinement of ten years, for robbery, affirmed.

       Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, 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 MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM
       Melvin J. Hebdon pled guilty to robbery. Idaho Code §§ 18-6501, 18-6502. The district
court sentenced Hebdon to a unified term of twenty years, with a minimum period of
confinement of ten years. Hebdon 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-
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, Hebdon’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

                                                   2