State v. Holmes

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 45814
STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: November 14, 2018
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
DAVID WAYNE HOLMES, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Canyon County. Hon. Davis VanderVelde, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum
period of confinement of yeas years, for felony intimidating a witness, affirmed.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, 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; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
David Wayne Holmes was found guilty of one count of felony intimidating a witness,
Idaho Code § 18-2604, seven counts of misdemeanor violation of a no contact order, I.C. § 18-
920, and one count of misdemeanor attempted violation of a no contact order, I.C. § 18-920. For
the felony, the district court imposed a unified five-year sentence, with two years determinate,
suspended the sentence, and placed Holmes on probation. Holmes received credit for time
served for his misdemeanor charges. Holmes appeals, contending that the determinate portion of
his felony sentence is excessive.
1
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, Holmes’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
2