Filed: Jun. 04, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 04, 2013
Summary: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY PER CURIAM. Marie Ann Watkins pled guilty to grand theft. Idaho Code 18-2403(1), 18-2407(1)(b)(1). The district court sentenced Watkins to a unified term of fourteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of one and one-half years. Watkins appeals asserting 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 revie
Summary: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY PER CURIAM. Marie Ann Watkins pled guilty to grand theft. Idaho Code 18-2403(1), 18-2407(1)(b)(1). The district court sentenced Watkins to a unified term of fourteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of one and one-half years. Watkins appeals asserting 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..
More
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
PER CURIAM.
Marie Ann Watkins pled guilty to grand theft. Idaho Code §§ 18-2403(1), 18-2407(1)(b)(1). The district court sentenced Watkins to a unified term of fourteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of one and one-half years. Watkins appeals asserting 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, Watkins' judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
