Filed: May 22, 2014
Latest Update: May 22, 2014
Summary: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY PER CURIAM. Matthew R. Peek, aka Matthew Robert Peek, Peekaboo pled guilty to aggravated driving under the influence. I.C. 18-8004, 18-8006. The district court sentenced Peek to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of one and one-half. Peek 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 reasonablene
Summary: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY PER CURIAM. Matthew R. Peek, aka Matthew Robert Peek, Peekaboo pled guilty to aggravated driving under the influence. I.C. 18-8004, 18-8006. The district court sentenced Peek to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of one and one-half. Peek 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 reasonablenes..
More
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
PER CURIAM.
Matthew R. Peek, aka Matthew Robert Peek, Peekaboo pled guilty to aggravated driving under the influence. I.C. §§ 18-8004, 18-8006. The district court sentenced Peek to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of one and one-half. Peek 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 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, Peek's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
