Opinion
Docket No. 38264
02-01-2012
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ANTHONY LYN ASHLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 343
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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Timothy Hansen, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of thirty years, with fifteen years determinate, for grand theft by possession of stolen property; ten years determinate for each of the four remaining counts of grand theft by possession of stolen property; five years determinate for each of six counts of unlawful possession of a firearm; and one year determinate for petit theft by possession of stolen property, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Before LANSING, Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
and MELANSON, Judge
PER CURIAM
Anthony Lyn Ashley was convicted of six counts of grand theft by possession of stolen property, with a persistent violator enhancement, Idaho Code §§ 18-2403(4), 18-2407(1); six counts of unlawful possession of a firearm, I.C. § 18-3316; and petit theft by possession of stolen property, I.C. §§ 18-2403(4), 18-2407(2). The district court sentenced Ashley to concurrent unified sentences of thirty years, with fifteen years determinate, for grand theft by possession of stolen property; ten years determinate for each of the four remaining counts of grand theft by possession of stolen property; five years determinate for each of six counts of unlawful possession of a firearm; and one year determinate for petit theft by possession of stolen property. Ashley appeals, contending that his sentences are 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, Ashley's judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.