From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Martin

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Jul 29, 2015
Docket No. 42560 (Idaho Ct. App. Jul. 29, 2015)

Opinion

Docket No. 42560 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 569

07-29-2015

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WILLIAM FLOYD MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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, Ada County. Hon. Steven J. Hippler, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, for sexual battery of a minor child sixteen or seventeen years of age, affirmed. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge

____________________

PER CURIAM

William Floyd Martin pled guilty to sexual battery of a minor child sixteen or seventeen years of age. I.C. § 18-1508(1)(a). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Martin to a unified term of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years. Martin filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Martin 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, Martin's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Martin

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Jul 29, 2015
Docket No. 42560 (Idaho Ct. App. Jul. 29, 2015)
Case details for

State v. Martin

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WILLIAM FLOYD MARTIN…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Jul 29, 2015

Citations

Docket No. 42560 (Idaho Ct. App. Jul. 29, 2015)