State v. Martinez

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JUAN MARTINEZ, JR., aka, WIZ…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Jan 3, 2013

Docket No. 39651 (Idaho Ct. App. Jan. 3, 2013)

Opinion

Docket No. 39651 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 307

01-03-2013

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JUAN MARTINEZ, JR., aka, WIZ MARTINEZ, JUAN RAMIREZ, WIZARD MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Susan E. Wiebe, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty-five years with a minimum period of confinement of ten years for aggravated battery, possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a crime, and being a persistent violator, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Juan Martinez, Jr., was convicted of aggravated battery, Idaho Code §§ 18-903(a), 18-907(b); with sentence enhancements for possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a crime, I.C. § 19-2520; and being a persistent violator, I.C. § 19-2514. The district court sentenced Martinez to a unified term of twenty-five years with a minimum period of confinement of ten years. Martinez 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, Martinez's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.