State v. Hughes

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. THOMAS W. HUGHES…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Jul 26, 2013

Docket No. 40229 (Idaho Ct. App. Jul. 26, 2013)

Opinion

Docket No. 40229 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 595

07-26-2013

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. THOMAS W. HUGHES, Defendant-Appellant.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Spencer J. Hahn, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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 Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Washington County. Hon. Susan E. Wiebe, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent, unified sentences of life, with twenty-five years determinate, for forcible rape and first degree kidnapping, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Spencer J. Hahn, 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 MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Thomas W. Hughes entered an Alford ¹ plea to forcible rape, Idaho Code § 18-6101, and first degree kidnapping, I.C. § 18-4501. The district court sentenced Hughes to concurrent, unified terms of life, with twenty-five years determinate. Hughes filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of his sentences, which the district court denied. Hughes now appeals, contending his sentences are excessive.

1

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, Hughes's judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.

See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).