Opinion
Docket No. 40303 Docket No. 40304 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 356
02-12-2013
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. GARY WILLIAM CLOE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgments of conviction and unified sentence of ten years with seven years determinate, and consecutive sentence of ten years indeterminate, for two charges of operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, affirmed . Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Patrick H. Owen, District Judge.
Judgments of conviction and unified sentence of ten years with seven years determinate, and consecutive sentence of ten years indeterminate, for two charges of operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Before LANSING, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
and MELANSON, Judge
PER CURIAM
In this consolidated appeal, Gary William Cloe was convicted of two charges of operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, Idaho Code §§ 18-8004; 18-8005(9). In Docket No. 40303, the district court sentenced Cloe to a unified term of ten years with a minimum period of confinement of seven years; and in Docket No. 40304, the district court imposed a ten-year indeterminate term to run consecutive to the sentence in Docket No. 40303. Cloe 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, Cloe's judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed.