Court Opinion

ID: 881200
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-06-05 00:43:10.285085+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:10.654000
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                       Docket No. 39379

STATE OF IDAHO,                                  )     2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 771
                                                 )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                     )     Filed: December 21, 2012
                                                 )
v.                                               )     Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
                                                 )
ROBERT EARL SMITH,                               )     THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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,
       Franklin County. Hon. Mitchell W. Brown, District Judge.

       Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eight years, with two years
       determinate, for sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen years, affirmed.

       Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy
       Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

       Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jason M. Gray, Deputy Attorney
       General, Boise, for respondent.
                 ________________________________________________

                     Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
                                 and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM
       Robert Earl Smith pled guilty to sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen years.
Idaho Code § 18-1506(1)(d). The district court sentenced Smith to a unified term of eight years,
with two years determinate. Smith appeals.
       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, Smith’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

                                                   2