Court Opinion

ID: 3152414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-11-05 18:05:18.178744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:27.608524
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                       Docket No. 42903

STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )   2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 692
                                                )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )   Filed: November 4, 2015
                                                )
v.                                              )   Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
                                                )
MICHAEL DAVID NIXON,                            )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
                                                )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
       Defendant-Appellant.                     )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
                                                )

       Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
       Kootenai County. Hon. Fred M. Gibler, District Judge.

       Judgment of conviction and sentences, 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 MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
                                 and HUSKEY, Judge
                  ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
       Michael David Nixon pleaded guilty to first degree kidnapping, Idaho Code § 18-4502,
and rape, Idaho Code § 18-6101. The district court imposed two concurrent life sentences, with
twenty years fixed. Nixon appeals, contending that his sentences are 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
the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho

                                                1
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, Nixon’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.

                                                   2