From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Scott

Court of Appeals of Idaho
Sep 17, 2021
No. 48308 (Idaho Ct. App. Sep. 17, 2021)

Opinion

48308

09-17-2021

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ARNOLD EARL SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A. Heffner, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.


UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. John T. Mitchell, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of eight years, for failure to register as a sex offender, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A. Heffner, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

Before HUSKEY, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge

PER CURIAM

Arnold Earl Scott pled guilty to failure to register as a sex offender, Idaho Code § 18-8307. The district court imposed a unified term of ten years with eight years determinate. Scott appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion when it "placed undue emphasis on punishing him for prior crimes for which he had already served his sentences," and by imposing an excessive sentence.

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). Our role is limited to determining whether reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion as the district court. State v. Biggs, 168 Idaho 112, 116, 480 P.3d 150, 154 (Ct. App. 2020).

Scott has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him to ten years, with eight years determinate for failure to register as a sex offender, and considering his prior crimes when imposing the sentence. Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Scott's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Scott

Court of Appeals of Idaho
Sep 17, 2021
No. 48308 (Idaho Ct. App. Sep. 17, 2021)
Case details for

State v. Scott

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ARNOLD EARL SCOTT…

Court:Court of Appeals of Idaho

Date published: Sep 17, 2021

Citations

No. 48308 (Idaho Ct. App. Sep. 17, 2021)