Court Opinion

ID: 4186742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-07-17 19:08:00.968538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:46:57.340914
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                       Docket No. 44689

STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )   2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 521
                                                )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )   Filed: July 17, 2017
                                                )
v.                                              )   Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
                                                )
ALONDRA SALINAS RODRIGUEZ,                      )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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 365-day jail sentence for petit theft, affirmed.

       Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, 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
       Alondra Salinas Rodriguez was found guilty of petit theft, Idaho Code § 18-2407. The
district court imposed a 365-day sentence in the county jail. Rodriguez appeals, contending that
her 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, Rodriguez’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

                                                   2