Court Opinion

ID: 4322936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-10-19 18:09:21.478971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:22.634752
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                       Docket No. 45861

STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )
                                                )   Filed: October 19, 2018
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )
                                                )   Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
v.                                              )
                                                )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
DONALD EUGENE DAVIS, 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. Jason D. Scott, District Judge.

       Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of
       confinement of three years, for trafficking in methamphetamine, affirmed.

       Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Liz A. Allred, Deputy
       Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

       Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy
       Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
                 ________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
       Donald Eugene Davis, Jr. pleaded guilty to trafficking in methamphetamine, Idaho Code
§ 37-2732B(a)(4)(A). The district court imposed a unified ten-year sentence, with three years
determinate. Davis 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, Davis’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

                                                   2