Court Opinion

ID: 4317450
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-10-02 17:25:49.013187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:11:36.124003
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                       Docket No. 45708

STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )
                                                )   Filed: October 2, 2018
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )
                                                )   Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
v.                                              )
                                                )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
KYLE ANDREW ODOM,                               )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
                                                )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
       Defendant-Appellant.                     )
                                                )

       Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
       Kootenai County. Hon. Lansing L. Haynes, District Judge.

       Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty-five years, with a minimum
       period of confinement of ten years, for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon
       enhancement, 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 GUTIERREZ, Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
                                  and LORELLO, Judge
                   ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
       Kyle Andrew Odom pleaded guilty to aggravated battery, Idaho Code §§ 18-903, 18-
907(1)(a), with a deadly weapon enhancement, I.C. § 19-2520. The district court imposed a
unified twenty-five-year sentence, with ten years determinate. Odom 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-

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

                                                   2