State v. Zachary Scott Smith

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 44587
STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 539
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: August 3, 2017
)
v. ) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
)
ZACHARY SCOTT SMITH, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Deborah A. Bail, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum
period of confinement of two years, for possession of heroin, 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; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
and HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Zachary Scott Smith pled guilty to possession of heroin, Idaho Code § 37-27432(c), in
exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a
unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, to run
concurrently to a sentence in a separate case. Smith 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-
1
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, Smith’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
2