Court Opinion

ID: 2683957
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-07-16 17:01:31.752834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:23.170052
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                       Docket No. 41393

STATE OF IDAHO,                                  )     2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 623
                                                 )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                     )     Filed: July 16, 2014
                                                 )
v.                                               )     Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
                                                 )
JESSE MICHAEL VIERSTRA,                          )     THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
                                                 )     OPINION AND SHALL NOT
       Defendant-Appellant.                      )     BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
                                                 )

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

       Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum
       period of confinement of five years, for rape, affirmed.

       Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy
       Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

       Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy
       Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
                 ________________________________________________

                         Before LANSING, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
                                  and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM
       Jesse Michael Vierstra was found guilty of rape. I.C. §§ 18-6101(4) and 18-6104. The
district court sentenced Vierstra to a unified term of fifteen years, with a minimum period of
confinement of five years. Vierstra appeals.
       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
the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho

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

                                                   2