eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Idaho Court of Appeals
 2015-02

State v. Damian Lopez-Suazo ( 2015 )


Menu:
 
  •                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 41786
STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )   2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 338
)
Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )   Filed: February 10, 2015
)
v.                                              )   Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
)
DAMIAN LOPEZ-SUAZO,                             )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
)   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
Defendant-Appellant.                     )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Timothy L. Hansen, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum
period   of   confinement     of     three   years,    for    trafficking  in
methamphetamine, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________
Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;
and GRATTON, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Damian Lopez-Suazo was found guilty of trafficking in methamphetamine. I.C. § 37-
2732B(a)(4). The district court sentenced Lopez-Suazo to a unified term of fifteen years, with a
minimum period of confinement of three years, to run consecutive to another unrelated sentence
in Nevada. Lopez-Suazo filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Lopez-Suazo
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
1
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, Lopez-Suazo’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
2