Opinion
Docket No. 44599 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 556
08-22-2017
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TIMOTHY PAUL HARRISON, aka DAVID JAMES BOGIE, KEITH WINDER, TIM HARRISON, TIMOTHY P. HARRISON, TIMOTHY PHYFFLE, Defendant-Appellant.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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 Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. James C. Morfitt, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for trafficking in marijuana, affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, 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 HUSKEY, Judge
____________________
PER CURIAM
Timothy Paul Harrison was found guilty of trafficking in marijuana, Idaho Code § 37-2732B(a)(1); misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia, I.C. § 37-2734A(1); and misdemeanor driving without privileges, I.C. § 49-301(1). On the misdemeanor counts, the district court imposed 302 days in jail with credit for time served of 302 days. For trafficking in marijuana, the district court imposed a unified sentence of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years. Harrison appeals, contending that his trafficking 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, Harrison's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.