Opinion
Docket No. 41399 Docket No. 41400 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 721
09-12-2014
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SHAUN PATRICK CONLEY, 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; Lori A. Fleming, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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 Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bannock County. Hon. David C. Nye, District Judge. Judgments of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of fifteen years with five years determinate for lewd conduct with a child under sixteen, and ten years with five years determinate for each of three counts of sexual exploitation of a child, affirmed. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Spencer J. Hahn, 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; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge PER CURIAM
In cases consolidated on appeal, Shaun Patrick Conley was convicted of lewd conduct with a child under sixteen, Idaho Code § 18-1508, and three counts of sexual exploitation of a child, I.C. § 18-1507(2)(A). The district court imposed concurrent unified sentences of fifteen years with five years determinate for lewd conduct, and ten years with five years determinate for each of three counts of sexual exploitation of a child. Conley 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, Conley's judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed.