State v. Pringle

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 45720
STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: September 26, 2018
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
KELLY RUTH PRINGLE, aka ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
MARSHALL, aka HITCHCOCK, ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Nancy Baskin, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of confinement of three years, for felony driving under the influence of
alcohol, affirmed.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Erik R. Lehtinen, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________
Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Kelly Ruth Pringle pled guilty to felony driving under the influence of alcohol, Idaho
Code §§ 18-8004, 18-8005(9). The district court imposed a unified sentence of ten years, with a
minimum period of confinement of three years. Pringle appeals, contending that her 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
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, Pringle’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
2