State v. Campbell

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DAVID SCOTT CAMPBELL…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Jun 19, 2014

Docket No. 41608 (Idaho Ct. App. Jun. 19, 2014)

Opinion

Docket No. 41608 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 573

06-19-2014

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DAVID SCOTT CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Erik R. Lehtinen, Chief, Appellate Unit; Abel J. Thomas, Legal Intern, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

PER CURIAM

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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, Ada County. Hon. Ronald J. Wilper, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of ten years with three years determinate, for two counts of burglary, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Erik R. Lehtinen, Chief, Appellate Unit; Abel J. Thomas, Legal Intern, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

David Scott Campbell was convicted of two counts of burglary, Idaho Code § 18-1401. The district court sentenced Campbell to concurrent unified terms of ten years with three years determinate and ordered the sentences to run consecutive to a sentence in a prior case. Campbell appeals, contending that his sentences are 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. 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, Campbell's judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.