State v. Hooper

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. HAROLD JOSEPH HOOPER…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Feb 25, 2014

Docket No. 41191 (Idaho Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2014)

Opinion

Docket No. 41191 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 394

02-25-2014

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. HAROLD JOSEPH HOOPER, Defendant-Appellant.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Deborah A. Bail, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with five years determinate, for trafficking in marijuana, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, 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

Harold Joseph Hooper pled guilty to trafficking in marijuana. Idaho Code § 37-2732B(a)(1). The district court sentenced Hooper to a unified term of fifteen years, with five years determinate. Hooper appeals, contending his 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, Hooper's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.