Court Opinion

ID: 4366795
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-02-11 19:06:04.084482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:21:54.438319
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                       Docket No. 46345

STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )
                                                )   Filed: February 11, 2019
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )
                                                )   Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
v.                                              )
                                                )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
MICHAEL LEE MUNOZ, JR.,                         )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
                                                )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
       Defendant-Appellant.                     )
                                                )

       Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
       County. Hon. Peter Barton, District Judge.

       Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years with three years
       determinate for possession of methamphetamine, affirmed.

       Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred,
       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; LORELLO, Judge;
                               and BRAILSFORD, Judge
                  ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
       Michael Lee Munoz, Jr. pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-
2732(c).   The district court imposed a unified sentence of seven years with three years
determinate. Munoz 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, Munoz’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

                                                   2