State v. Dodson

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WILLIAM D. DODSON, III…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Jun 5, 2013

Docket No. 40148 (Idaho Ct. App. Jun. 5, 2013)

Opinion

Docket No. 40148 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 526

06-05-2013

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WILLIAM D. DODSON, III, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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 Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Payette County. Hon. Susan E. Wiebe, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of twenty-five years, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years, for three counts of lewd conduct with a child under sixteen, 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; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

William D. Dodson, III was found guilty of three counts of lewd conduct with a child under sixteen. Idaho Code § 18-1506(1)(b). The district court sentenced Dodson to concurrent unified terms of twenty-five years, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years on each count. Dodson 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, Dodson's judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.