Opinion
Docket No. 39015
05-03-2012
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TIMOTHY DALE HILSCHER, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Cassia County. Hon. Michael R. Crabtree, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and suspended unified sentences of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for delivery of a controlled substance and seven years, with one year determinate, for possession of a controlled substance, 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.
2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 461
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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT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, Cassia County. Hon. Michael R. Crabtree, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and suspended unified sentences of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for delivery of a controlled substance and seven years, with one year determinate, for possession of a controlled substance, 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
Timothy Dale Hilscher pled guilty to delivery of a controlled substance. Idaho Code § 37-2732(a)(1)(A). Hilscher also entered an Alford plea to possession of a controlled substance, I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1). The district court sentenced Hilscher to concurrent unified sentences of ten years, with two years determinate for delivery of a controlled substance, and seven years with one year determinate, for possession of a controlled substance. The court suspended the sentences and placed Hilscher on probation. Hilscher appeals, asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing excessive sentences.
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, Hilscher's judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).