State v. Hogue

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BRIAN ELLIOTT HOGUE…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Jul 5, 2013

Docket No. 40273 (Idaho Ct. App. Jul. 5, 2013)

Opinion

Docket No. 40273 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 567

07-05-2013

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BRIAN ELLIOTT HOGUE, Defendant-Appellant.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sarah E. Tompkins, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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 Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Cheri C. Copsey, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and sentence of six years, with no minimum period of confinement, for possession of sexually exploitative material, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sarah E. Tompkins, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Brian Elliott Hogue pled guilty to possession of sexually exploitative material. Idaho Code § 18-1507A, 18-1507. The district court sentenced Hogue to a term of six years, with no minimum period of confinement, to be served consecutively to his sentence in another case. Hogue 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, Hogue's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.