Court Opinion

ID: 4113189
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-01-04 20:07:31.265935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:14:35.262257
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                       Docket No. 44147

STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )   2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 302
                                                )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )   Filed: January 4, 2017
                                                )
v.                                              )   Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
                                                )
FRANK LAMBERTUS,                                )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
                                                )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
       Defendant-Appellant.                     )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
                                                )

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

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

       Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford,
       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; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
                                 and HUSKEY, Judge
                  ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
       Frank Lambertus was found guilty of rape, Idaho Code § 18-6101(4). The district court
imposed a unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years.
Lambertus 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, Lambertus’ judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

                                                   2