eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Idaho Court of Appeals
 2018-12

State v. Sebastian ( 2018 )


Menu:
 
  •                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 45882
STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )
)   Filed: December 4, 2018
Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )
)   Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
v.                                              )
)   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
DAVID PATRICK SEBASTIAN,                        )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
)   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant.                     )
)
Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Canyon County. Hon. Gene A. Petty, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and aggregate, unified sentence of forty-five years, with a
minimum period of confinement of twenty years, for one count of child
enticement and ten counts of sexual exploitation of a child, affirmed.
Eric D. Fredericksen, 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 GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
David Patrick Sebastian pled guilty to one count of child enticement through use of the
Internet and ten counts of sexual exploitation of a child.       Idaho Code §§ 18-1509A, 18-
1507(2)(a). The district court sentenced Sebastian to an aggregate, unified sentence of forty-five
years with twenty years determinate. Sebastian appeals asserting that the district court abused its
discretion by imposing excessive sentences.
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, Sebastian’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
2