State v. Geesen

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHAEL MATHEW GEESEN…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Aug 29, 2013

Docket No. 40531 (Idaho Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2013)

Opinion

Docket No. 40531 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 648

08-29-2013

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHAEL MATHEW GEESEN, Defendant-Appellant.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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 Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin Falls County. Hon. Randy J. Stoker, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, 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; LANSING, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Michael Mathew Geesen was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, Idaho Code § 37-2732(a)(1)(B). The district court sentenced Geesen to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years. Geesen appeals, contending that his sentence is 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, Geesen's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.