State v. Gibbs

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROGER LEE GIBBS…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Jan 7, 2014

Docket No. 40740 (Idaho Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2014)

Opinion

Docket No. 40740 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 311

01-07-2014

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROGER LEE GIBBS, Defendant-Appellant.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Spencer J. Hahn, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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 Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. George A. Southworth, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two and one-half years, for two counts of possession of a forged check, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Spencer J. Hahn, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, 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 GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Roger Lee Gibbs entered Alford ¹ pleas to two counts of possession of a forged check. Idaho Code § 18-3605. The district court sentenced Gibbs to concurrent unified terms of ten years with a minimum period of confinement of two and one-half years on each count. Gibbs appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing excessive sentences.

1

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, Gibbs' judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.

See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).