Filed Date: 1/15/2019
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 45973 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: January 15, 2019 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED KENNY THOMAS MC DONALD, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant.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. Jonathan Medema, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of forty years, with a minimum period of confinement of seventeen years, for robbery, affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, 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 GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Kenny Thomas McDonald pled guilty to robbery. Idaho Code §§ 18-6501, 18-6502. The district court sentenced McDonald to a unified term of forty years with seventeen years determinate. McDonald appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing and 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, McDonald’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed. 2