State v. Sykes

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MISTY DAWN SYKES…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Sep 16, 2015

Docket No. 42904 (Idaho Ct. App. Sep. 16, 2015)

Opinion

Docket No. 42904 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 631

09-16-2015

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MISTY DAWN SYKES, Defendant-Appellant.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Eric D. Fredericksen, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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 Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Lynn G. Norton, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year, for grand theft by possession of stolen property, affirmed. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Eric D. Fredericksen, 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

Misty Dawn Sykes pled guilty to grand theft by possession of stolen property, Idaho Code §§ 18-2403(4), 18-2407(1), 18-2409. The district court imposed a unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year. Sykes 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, Sykes's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.