Court Opinion

ID: 3193391
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-04-12 21:03:07.193913+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:46.912215
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                        Docket No. 43704

STATE OF IDAHO,                                  )   2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 477
                                                 )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                     )   Filed: April 12, 2016
                                                 )
v.                                               )   Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
                                                 )
MISTY LARAE MAY,                                 )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
                                                 )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
       Defendant-Appellant.                      )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
                                                 )

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

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

       Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy
       Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

       Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney
       General, Boise, for respondent.
                 ________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
       Misty Larae May pled guilty to trafficking in heroin. Idaho Code § 37-2732B(a)(6). The
district court sentenced May to a unified term of fifteen years with three years determinate. May
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-
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, May’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

                                                   2