eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Idaho Court of Appeals
 2018-08

State v. Schyler-Burkett ( 2018 )


Menu:
 
  •                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 45796
STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )
)   Filed: August 30, 2018
Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )
)   Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
v.                                              )
)   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
CHRIS JAMES SCHYLER-BURKETT,                    )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
aka C.J. SCHYLER-BURKETT,                       )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
Defendant-Appellant.                     )
)
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Jonathan Medema, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of six years, with a minimum period
of confinement of three years, for grand theft by disposing of stolen
property, affirmed.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Lara E. Anderson, 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 HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Chris James Schyler-Burkett pled guilty to grand theft by disposing of stolen property.
Idaho Code §§ 18-2403(4), 18-2407(1), 18-2409. The district court sentenced Schyler-Burkett to
a unified term of six years with three years determinate, to be served concurrently with any other
imposed prison sentence. Schyler-Burkett 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
1
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, Schyler-Burkett’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
2