Court Opinion

ID: 881489
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-06-05 00:44:17.995664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:57.119667
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                       Docket No. 39192

STATE OF IDAHO,                                  )      2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 481
                                                 )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                     )      Filed: May 17, 2012
                                                 )
v.                                               )      Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
                                                 )
KYLE DANIEL DAY,                                 )      THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
                                                 )      OPINION AND SHALL NOT
       Defendant-Appellant.                      )      BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
                                                 )

       Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Cassia
       County. Hon. Michael R. Crabtree, District Judge.

       Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum
       period of confinement of five years, for rape, affirmed.

       Sara B. Thomas, 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; LANSING, Judge;
                                 and GUTIERREZ, Judge

PER CURIAM
       Kyle Daniel Day pleaded guilty to rape, Idaho Code § 19-1601(1). The district court
sentenced Day to a unified term of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of five
years, to run concurrent with two unrelated sentences. Day 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

                                                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, Day’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

                                                   2