Court Opinion

ID: 4319583
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-10-11 20:12:47.85989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:24.031592
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                       Docket No. 45806

STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )
                                                )   Filed: October 11, 2018
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )
                                                )   Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
v.                                              )
                                                )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
CHARLES CECIL CARROLL,                          )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
                                                )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
       Defendant-Appellant.                     )
                                                )

       Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,
       Bonneville County. Hon. Dane H. Watkins, District Judge.

       Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum
       period of confinement of one and one-half years, for lewd conduct with a child
       under sixteen, affirmed.

       Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth Ann 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; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
                                  and HUSKEY, Judge
                   ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
       Charles Cecil Carroll pled guilty to lewd conduct with a child under sixteen. Idaho Code
§ 18-1508. The district court sentenced Carroll to a unified term of fifteen years with one and
one-half years determinate. Carroll 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-

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

                                                   2