State v. Richard John Caverly ( 2013 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 40161
STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 524
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: June 5, 2013
)
v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
)
RICHARD JOHN CAVERLY, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Cassia
County. Hon. Jonathan P. Brody, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of confinement of two years, for felony driving under the influence of
alcohol, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, 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 GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;
and MELANSON, Judge
PER CURIAM
Richard John Caverly was convicted of felony driving under the influence of alcohol,
Idaho Code § 18-8004. The district court sentenced Caverly to a unified term of ten years, with a
minimum period of confinement of two years. Caverly 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-
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, Caverly’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
2