Court Opinion

ID: 4173364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-05-31 21:11:03.659596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:24:19.643741
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                       Docket No. 44531

STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )   2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 476
                                                )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )   Filed: May 31, 2017
                                                )
v.                                              )   Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
                                                )
CLINT TERRELL OXIER,                            )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Michael Reardon, District Judge.

       Judgment of conviction and sentence of ten years determinate with a consecutive
       sentence of ten years indeterminate for two counts of sexual exploitation of a
       child, affirmed.

       Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, 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; MELANSON, Judge;
                                  and HUSKEY, Judge
                   ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
       Clint Terrell Oxier pled guilty to two counts of sexual exploitation of a child, Idaho
Code § 18-1507(2)(a). The district court imposed a ten-year determinate sentence for Count I
and a consecutive ten-year indeterminate sentence for Count II. Oxier appeals, contending that
his sentences are 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-

                                                1
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
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, Oxier’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.

                                                   2