State v. Richter

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MARK HENRY RICHTER…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Mar 30, 2017

Docket No. 44533 (Idaho Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2017)

Opinion

Docket No. 44533 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 424

03-30-2017

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MARK HENRY RICHTER, Defendant-Appellant.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Bradly S. Ford, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of nine years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, 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

Mark Henry Richter pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, Idaho Code § 37-2732(a)(1)(A). The district court imposed a unified nine-year sentence, with two years determinate. Richter 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, Richter's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.