Opinion
Docket No. 39342 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 621
09-05-2012
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KARA MAURINE HANSON, 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.
Stephen W. Kenyon, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. John P. Luster, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of four years, with a minimum
period of confinement of two years, for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, 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
Kara Maurine Hanson entered an Alford plea to a reduced charge of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. Idaho Code § 37-2732(A)(B). The district court sentenced Hanson to a unified term of four years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, suspended the sentence, and placed Hanson on supervised probation for two years. The district court granted Hanson's Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, converting her probation to unsupervised probation and allowing her to relocate to California. Hanson appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive 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, Hanson's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).