State v. Sarah Joann Fencl

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 43120
STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 305
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: January 6, 2016
)
v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
)
SARAH JOANN FENCL, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Lynn G. Norton, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum
period of confinement of five years, for felony driving under the influence,
affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, 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
Sarah Joann Fencl pled guilty to felony driving under the influence. Idaho Code §§ 18-
8004, 18-8005(9) with sentencing enhancement, I.C. § 19-2514. The district court sentenced
Fencl to unified sentence of fifteen years with five years determinate. Fencl 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.
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, Fencl’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.