Opinion
Docket No. 44501 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 419
03-28-2017
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ANTHONY JAMES PENROD, Defendant-Appellant.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Maya P. Waldron, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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 Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bingham County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of seven years, for sexual abuse of a child under sixteen years of age, affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Maya P. Waldron, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; MELANSON, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge
____________________
PER CURIAM
Anthony James Penrod pled guilty to sexual abuse of a child under sixteen years of age. I.C. § 18-1506(1)(b). The district court sentenced Penrod to a unified term of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of seven years. Penrod appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive and that the district court should have retained jurisdiction.
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, Penrod's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.