Court Opinion

ID: 880987
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-06-05 00:42:24.442759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:24.602629
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                        Docket No. 40141

STATE OF IDAHO,                                  )      2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 490
                                                 )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                     )      Filed: May 14, 2013
                                                 )
v.                                               )      Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
                                                 )
CHRISTOPHER LEE DEIKE,                           )      THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
                                                 )      OPINION AND SHALL NOT
       Defendant-Appellant.                      )      BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
                                                 )

       Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho,
       Canyon County. Hon. Renae J. Hoff, District Judge.

       Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty-five years, with a
       minimum period of confinement of five years, for sexual abuse of a child under
       the age of sixteen years, affirmed.

       Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sarah E. Tompkins, Deputy
       Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM
       Christopher Lee Deike pled guilty to sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen
years. Idaho Code § 18-1506(a). The district court sentenced Deike to a unified term of twenty-
five years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years. Deike 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.

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

                                                   2