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: Jun 10, 2013

Docket No. 40005 (Idaho Ct. App. Jun. 10, 2013)

Opinion

Docket No. 40005 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 530

06-10-2013

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Michael E. Wetherell, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fourteen years, with five years determinate for grand theft, and concurrent, determinate sentence of three years for issuing a check without funds, 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 grand theft, Idaho Code §§ 18-2403(1), 18-2407(1)(b), and issuing a check without funds, I.C. § 18-3106(a). The district court sentenced Hogue to a unified term of fourteen years, with five years determinate, for the grand theft conviction and a concurrent, determinate term of three years for the issuing a check without funds conviction. Hogue filled an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for a reduction of sentence, which the district court denied. Hogue now appeals, contending 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, Hogue's judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.