Court Opinion

ID: 4397777
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-05-16 21:03:27.519272+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:28.108146
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                       Docket No. 46206

STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )
                                                )   Filed: May 16, 2019
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )
                                                )   Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
v.                                              )
                                                )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
DOROTHY ELLEN MARX,                             )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
                                                )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
       Defendant-Appellant.                     )
                                                )

       Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
       Elmore County. Hon. George D. Carey, District Judge.

       Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum
       period of confinement of two years, for felony driving under the
       influence, affirmed.

       Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, 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
       Dorothy Ellen Marx was found guilty of felony driving under the influence. I.C. § 18-
8004(1)(a). The district court sentenced Marx to a unified term of five years, with a minimum
period of confinement of two years. The district court retained jurisdiction and sent Marx to
participate in the rider program. Marx appeals, arguing 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

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

                                                   2