Court Opinion

ID: 4341328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-11-14 18:08:48.850375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:17:24.025040
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                       Docket No. 45960

STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )
                                                )   Filed: November 14, 2018
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )
                                                )   Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
v.                                              )
                                                )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
NATHAN VANG KOU THAO,                           )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
                                                )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
       Defendant-Appellant.                     )
                                                )

       Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
       Bannock County. Hon. Rick Carnaroli, District Judge.

       Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of four years, with a minimum
       period of confinement of two years, for trafficking in marijuana, affirmed.

       Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Liz A. Allred, 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
       Nathan Vang Kou Thao pleaded guilty to trafficking in marijuana, Idaho Code § 37-
2732B(a)(1)(A). The district court imposed a unified sentence of four years, with two years
determinate. Thao appeals, contending that his 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, Thao’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

                                                   2