State v. Tyler McLaughlin (aka Abel) ( 2017 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 44474
STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 343
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: February 2, 2017
)
v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
)
TYLER McLAUGHLIN, aka ABEL, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Melissa Moody, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum
period of confinement of five years, for robbery, 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; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
and MELANSON, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Tyler McLaughlin pled guilty to robbery. Idaho Code § 18-6501. The district court
sentenced McLaughlin to a unified term of fifteen years with five years determinate.
McLaughlin 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.
1
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, McLaughlin’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
2