State v. Smith ( 2019 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 45714
STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 3, 2019
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
DAKOTAH V. SMITH, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Jason D. Scott, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and aggregate unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum
period of confinement of three and one-half years, for vehicular manslaughter, felony,
and aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol, affirmed.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds,
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; HUSKEY, Judge;
and BRAILSFORD, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Dakotah V. Smith was found guilty of vehicular manslaughter, felony, Idaho Code § 18-
4006(3)(b), and aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol, felony, I.C. § 18-8006. For
the two felonies, the district court imposed an aggregate, unified sentence of fifteen years, with
three and one-half years determinate. Smith 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, Smith’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
2