State v. Taylor

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RUSSELL DEAN TAYLOR…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: May 22, 2017

Docket No. 44414 (Idaho Ct. App. May. 22, 2017)

Opinion

Docket No. 44414 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 467

05-22-2017

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RUSSELL DEAN TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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 First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. Cynthia K.C. Meyer, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and suspended unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for possession of a controlled substance, affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

____________________

PER CURIAM

Russell Dean Taylor was found guilty of possession of a controlled substance. I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1). The district court sentenced Taylor to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years. However, the district court suspended the sentence and placed Taylor on probation. Taylor appeals, arguing his underlying 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, Taylor's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.