State v. Hastings

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DENNIS RAY HASTINGS…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Oct 10, 2012

Docket No. 39454 (Idaho Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2012)

Opinion

Docket No. 39454 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 663

10-10-2012

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DENNIS RAY HASTINGS, Defendant-Appellant.

Nevin, Benjamin, McKay & Bartlett, LLP; Deborah A. Whipple, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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 Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho,

Caribou County. Hon. Mitchell W. Brown, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of eight years with three

years determinate for delivery of marijuana, and ten years with three years

determinate for trafficking in marijuana, affirmed.

Nevin, Benjamin, McKay & Bartlett, LLP; Deborah A. Whipple, 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

Dennis Ray Hastings was convicted of delivery of marijuana, Idaho Code § 37-2732(a)(1)(B), with a sentence enhancement for a second or subsequent offense, I.C. § 37-2739; and trafficking in marijuana, I.C. § 37-2732B(a)(1)(A). The district court sentenced Hastings to a unified term of eight years with three years determinate for delivery, and ten years with three years determinate for trafficking. Hastings appeals, contending that his sentences are 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, Hastings' judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.