State v. Chappa

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NICHOLAS LEE CHAPPA…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: May 5, 2014

Docket No. 41346 (Idaho Ct. App. May. 5, 2014)

Opinion

Docket No. 41346 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 490

05-05-2014

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NICHOLAS LEE CHAPPA, Defendant-Appellant.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Spencer J. Hahn, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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 Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin

Falls County. Hon. Randy J. Stoker, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of life, with a minimum

period of confinement of fifteen years, for lewd conduct with a minor; and

twenty-five years with fifteen years determinate for sexual abuse of a minor,

affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Spencer J. Hahn, Deputy

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Nicholas Lee Chappa was found guilty of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen (Idaho Code § 18-112A) and sexual abuse of a child under sixteen (I.C. §§ 18-1506(5), 18-112A). The district court sentenced Chappa to concurrent unified sentences of life, with a minimum period of confinement of fifteen years for the lewd conduct charge and twenty-five years with ten years determinate for the sexual abuse charge. Chappa appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing excessive sentences.

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, Chappa's judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.