State v. Ephraim

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WAYDE EUGENE EPHRAIM…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Mar 28, 2012

Docket No. 38664 (Idaho Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2012)

Opinion

Docket No. 38664 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 414

03-28-2012

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WAYDE EUGENE EPHRAIM, Defendant-Appellant.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Diane M. Walker, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Bradly S. Ford, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of life, with minimum periods of confinement of twenty-five years, for two counts of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Diane M. Walker, 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; LANSING, Judge;

and GUTIERREZ, Judge

PER CURIAM

Wayde Eugene Ephraim pled guilty to two counts of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen. Idaho Code § 18-1508. The district court sentenced Ephraim to concurrent unified terms of life, with a minimum period of confinement of twenty-five years. Ephraim appeals, requesting this Court to reduce the determinate portion of his sentence.

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, Ephraim's judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.