State v. Douglas Lee North

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 38947
STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 496
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: May 29, 2012
)
v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
)
DOUGLAS LEE NORTH, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bannock County. Hon. Robert C. Naftz, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eight years, with a minimum
period of confinement of three years, for felony driving under the influence of
alcohol, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sarah E. Tompkins, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy
Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________
Before LANSING, Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
and MELANSON, Judge
PER CURIAM
Douglas Lee North was convicted of felony driving under the influence of alcohol, Idaho
Code §§ 18-8004; 18-8005(7). The district court sentenced North to a unified term of eight
years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years. North 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, North’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
2