State v. Jose Palominos, Jr. ( 2016 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 43789
STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 562
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: June 14, 2016
)
v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
)
JOSE PALOMINOS, JR., ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Canyon County. Hon. Bradly S. Ford, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of confinement of two years, for injury to children, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth Ann Allred, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________
Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
and HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Jose Palominos, Jr. pled guilty to injury to children. Idaho Code § 18-1501(1). The
district court sentenced Palominos to a unified term of ten years with two years determinate.
Palominos 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, Palominos’ judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
2