Opinion
Docket No. 45861
10-19-2018
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DONALD EUGENE DAVIS, JR., Defendant-Appellant.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Liz A. Allred, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Karel A. Lehrman, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Jason D. Scott, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for trafficking in methamphetamine, affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Liz A. Allred, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge
____________________
PER CURIAM
Donald Eugene Davis, Jr. pleaded guilty to trafficking in methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-2732B(a)(4)(A). The district court imposed a unified ten-year sentence, with three years determinate. Davis 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. 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, Davis's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.