State v. Pomrenke ( 2018 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 45561
STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: December 31, 2018
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
STEVEN ANTHONY POMRENKE, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Jerome County. Hon. G. Richard Bevan, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum
period of confinement of five years, for vehicular manslaughter, affirmed.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, 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
Steven Anthony Pomrenke pled guilty to vehicular manslaughter, Idaho Code § 18-
4006(3)(b), and driving without privileges, I.C. § 18-8001(3). The district court imposed a
unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, for
vehicular manslaughter and a concurrent six-month sentence for driving without privileges.
Pomrenke appeals, contending that his sentence for vehicular manslaughter 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, Pomrenke’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
2