From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Armstrong

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Oct 6, 2017
Docket No. 44929 (Idaho Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2017)

Opinion

Docket No. 44929 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 615

10-06-2017

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BRADLEY ARMSTRONG, 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.


Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Minidoka County. Hon. Jonathan P. Brody, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of six years, for driving under the influence, 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 GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge

____________________

PER CURIAM

Bradley Armstrong pleaded guilty to felony driving under the influence, Idaho Code §§ 18-8004, 18-8005(6). The district court imposed a unified ten-year sentence, with six years determinate. The district court retained jurisdiction, and Armstrong was sent to participate in the rider program. Armstrong filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. After Armstrong completed his rider, the district court placed Armstrong on a period of probation. Armstrong appeals, claiming that his sentence is excessive and constitutes an abuse of discretion.

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, Armstrong's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Armstrong

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Oct 6, 2017
Docket No. 44929 (Idaho Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2017)
Case details for

State v. Armstrong

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BRADLEY ARMSTRONG…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Oct 6, 2017

Citations

Docket No. 44929 (Idaho Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2017)