Opinion
Docket No. 43341 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 501
04-27-2016
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. GARRETT RAY ASHFORD, Defendant-Appellant.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Maya P. Waldron, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Elmore County. Hon. Cheri C. Copsey, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and sentence, affirmed. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Maya P. Waldron, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge
____________________
PER CURIAM
Garrett Ray Ashford pleaded guilty to lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen, Idaho Code § 18-1508. The district court imposed a unified life sentence, with twenty years determinate. Ashford appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive.
In the Appellant's Brief, Ashford raised the issue of whether the district court erred by failing to include a specific expiration date for the no contact order, but Ashford withdrew the issue in his Reply Brief. --------
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, Ashford's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.