Filed: Aug. 16, 2012
Latest Update: Aug. 16, 2012
Summary: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY PER CURIAM. Robert Charles Elizarraraz pled guilty to felony violation of a no-contact order. I.C. 18-920. In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed and the state agreed not to pursue an allegation that Elizarraraz was a persistent violator. The district court sentenced Elizarraraz to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years. Elizarraraz filed an I.C.R. 35 motio
Summary: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY PER CURIAM. Robert Charles Elizarraraz pled guilty to felony violation of a no-contact order. I.C. 18-920. In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed and the state agreed not to pursue an allegation that Elizarraraz was a persistent violator. The district court sentenced Elizarraraz to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years. Elizarraraz filed an I.C.R. 35 motion..
More
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
PER CURIAM.
Robert Charles Elizarraraz pled guilty to felony violation of a no-contact order. I.C. § 18-920. In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed and the state agreed not to pursue an allegation that Elizarraraz was a persistent violator. The district court sentenced Elizarraraz to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years. Elizarraraz filed an I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of his sentence, which the district court denied. Elizarraraz appeals, challenging the excessiveness of his 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, Elizarraraz's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
