State v. Engman

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CURTIS BRIAN ENGMAN…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: May 6, 2014

Docket No. 41276 (Idaho Ct. App. May. 6, 2014)

Opinion

Docket No. 41276 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 492

05-06-2014

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CURTIS BRIAN ENGMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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, Canyon County. Hon. Thomas J. Ryan, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for escape, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Curtis Brian Engman pled guilty to escape. I.C. § 18-2505. The district court sentenced Engman to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, to run consecutive to an unrelated sentence. Engman appeals.

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, Engman's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.