Court Opinion

ID: 4390317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-04-24 18:03:36.806571+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:28.515893
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                       Docket No. 45874

STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )
                                                )   Filed: April 24, 2019
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )
                                                )   Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
v.                                              )
                                                )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JOSEPH LEE FENNER,                              )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
                                                )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
       Defendant-Appellant.                     )
                                                )

       Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, State of Idaho,
       Latah County. Hon. John Judge, District Judge.

       Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
       of confinement of two years, for grand theft, affirmed.

       Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, 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; HUSKEY, Judge;
                                 and LORELLO, Judge
                  ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
       Joseph Lee Fenner was found guilty of grand theft. I.C. §§ 18-2403(1), 18-2407(1)(b)(8),
and 18-2408. The district court sentenced Fenner to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum
period of confinement of two years. The district court retained jurisdiction and sent Fenner to
participate in the rider program.    Fenner appeals, arguing that his underlying 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

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

                                                   2