Filed Date: 4/27/2015
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 42069 STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 476 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: April 27, 2015 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) ROBERT DANIEL PERRIGO, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY ) Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Gem County. Hon. Susan E. Wiebe, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified twenty-five-year sentence, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years, affirmed. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, 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; LANSING, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Robert Daniel Perrigo pled guilty to one count of infamous crime against nature,Idaho Code § 18-6605
. In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court imposed a unified sentence of twenty-five years with ten years fixed. Perrigo appeals, contending that his 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 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, Perrigo’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed. 2