Filed: Sep. 30, 2011
Latest Update: Sep. 30, 2011
Summary: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY PER CURIAM Justin Roy Booth was convicted of robbery, I.C. 18-6501; two counts of grand theft, I.C. 18-2403(1); burglary, I.C. 18-1401; and felony eluding a police officer, I.C. 49-1404(2). The district court sentenced Booth to concurrent unified sentences of twelve years, with three years determinate, for robbery; seven years, with three years determinate, for each of two counts of grand theft; seven years, with three
Summary: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY PER CURIAM Justin Roy Booth was convicted of robbery, I.C. 18-6501; two counts of grand theft, I.C. 18-2403(1); burglary, I.C. 18-1401; and felony eluding a police officer, I.C. 49-1404(2). The district court sentenced Booth to concurrent unified sentences of twelve years, with three years determinate, for robbery; seven years, with three years determinate, for each of two counts of grand theft; seven years, with three y..
More
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
PER CURIAM
Justin Roy Booth was convicted of robbery, I.C. § 18-6501; two counts of grand theft, I.C. § 18-2403(1); burglary, I.C. § 18-1401; and felony eluding a police officer, I.C. § 49-1404(2). The district court sentenced Booth to concurrent unified sentences of twelve years, with three years determinate, for robbery; seven years, with three years determinate, for each of two counts of grand theft; seven years, with three years determinate, for burglary; and three years determinate for felony eluding. Booth appeals, contending that his sentences are 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 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, Booth's judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
