State v. Dyke

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DEE WAYNE DYKE…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Dec 20, 2011

Docket No. 38720 (Idaho Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2011)

Opinion

Docket No. 38720

12-20-2011

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DEE WAYNE DYKE, Defendant-Appellant.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Diane M. Walker, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

PER CURIAM

2011 Unpublished Opinion No. 752

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Michael E. Wetherell, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fourteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, for grand theft and concurrent unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for burglary, affirmed.
Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Diane M. Walker, 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; LANSING, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Dee Wayne Dyke pled guilty to grand theft, I.C. §§ 18-2403(1), 2407(1)(b), and burglary, I.C. § 18-1401. The district court sentenced Dyke to a unified term of fourteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, for grand theft and a concurrent unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for burglary. Dyke appeals.

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, Dyke's judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.