STATE v. BUCK, 42834 (2015)
Court: Court of Appeals of Idaho
Number: inidco20150727204
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jul. 27, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 27, 2015
Summary: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY PER CURIAM . Thomas Henry Buck pled guilty to stalking in the first degree. Idaho Code 18-7905. The district court sentenced Buck to a unified term of five years with three years determinate, to run consecutive to a separate sentence. Buck appeals contending that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence. Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review a
Summary: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY PER CURIAM . Thomas Henry Buck pled guilty to stalking in the first degree. Idaho Code 18-7905. The district court sentenced Buck to a unified term of five years with three years determinate, to run consecutive to a separate sentence. Buck appeals contending that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence. Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review an..
More
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
PER CURIAM.
Thomas Henry Buck pled guilty to stalking in the first degree. Idaho Code § 18-7905. The district court sentenced Buck to a unified term of five years with three years determinate, to run consecutive to a separate sentence. Buck appeals contending that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an 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. 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, Buck's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Source: Leagle
