State v. Lee ( 2019 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 45839
STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: February 12, 2019
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
DAVID PAUL LEE, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Gem
County. Hon. George A. Southworth, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eight years with three years
determinate for stalking in the first degree with a persistent violator
enhancement, affirmed.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________
Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and BRAILSFORD, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
David Paul Lee was found guilty of stalking in the first degree, Idaho Code § 18-7905,
with a persistent violator enhancement, I.C. § 19-2514. The district court imposed a unified
sentence of eight years with three years determinate. Lee appeals, contending that his sentence is
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-
1
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, Lee’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
2