Court Opinion

ID: 4358902
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-01-15 19:11:17.675187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:16:05.416857
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                       Docket No. 45973

STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )
                                                )   Filed: January 15, 2019
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )
                                                )   Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
v.                                              )
                                                )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
KENNY THOMAS MC DONALD,                         )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
                                                )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
       Defendant-Appellant.                     )
                                                )

       Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
       County. Hon. Jonathan Medema, District Judge.

       Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of forty years, with a minimum
       period of confinement of seventeen years, for robbery, 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 BRAILSFORD, Judge
                  ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
       Kenny Thomas McDonald pled guilty to robbery. Idaho Code §§ 18-6501, 18-6502. The
district court sentenced McDonald to a unified term of forty years with seventeen years
determinate. McDonald appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing
and excessive sentence.
       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.

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

                                                   2