Filed Date: 8/3/2018
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 45762 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: August 3, 2018 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED JONATHAN STEVEN MIZE, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Peter G. Barton, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of six years, with a minimum period of confinement of one and one-half years, for burglary, affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Maya P. Waldron, 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 LORELLO, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Jonathan Steven Mize pled guilty to burglary. I.C. § 18-1401. In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court sentenced Mize to a unified term of six years, with a minimum period of confinement of one and one-half years. Mize appeals. 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, Mize’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed. 2