State v. Mark D. Beavers ( 2012 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 39609
STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 765
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: December 20, 2012
)
v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
)
MARK D. BEAVERS, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Kootenai County. Hon. Benjamin R. Simpson, District Judge.
Judgments of conviction and unified sentence of twelve years with a minimum
period of confinement of two years for trafficking in marijuana, and consecutive
three-year determinate term for delivery of marijuana, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, 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; LANSING, Judge;
and GUTIERREZ, Judge
PER CURIAM
Mark D. Beavers was convicted of trafficking in marijuana, Idaho Code § 37-
2732(a)(1)(B); possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, I.C. § 37-2732(a)(1)(A); and
delivery of marijuana, I.C. § 37-2732(a)(1)(B), with sentence enhancements. The district court
sentenced Beavers to a unified term of twelve years with two years determinate for trafficking, a
concurrent unified term of five years with two years determinate for possession with intent to
deliver, and a consecutive sentence of three years determinate for delivery. Beavers appeals,
contending that his sentences for trafficking and delivery of marijuana are excessive.
1
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.
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, Beavers’ judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
2