Opinion
Docket No. 44876 2018 Unpublished Opinion No. 313
01-08-2018
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SETHEN SIMEON DYERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. Richard S. Christensen, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, for grand theft and concurrent unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for felony eluding a police officer, affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and LORELLO, Judge
____________________
PER CURIAM
Sethen Simeon Dyerson was found guilty of grand theft, I.C. §§ 18-2403(1); 18-2407(1)(b)(1); and 18-204; felony eluding a police officer, I.C. §§ 49-4902(2); and being a persistent violator, I.C. § 19-2514. The district court sentenced Dyerson to a unified term of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, for grand theft and a concurrent unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for felony eluding a police officer. However, the district court retained jurisdiction. Thereafter, the district court suspended the sentences and placed Dyerson on probation. Dyerson appeals, claiming 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, Dyerson's judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.