State v. Hunt

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NATHAN WAYNE HUNT…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Aug 17, 2012

Docket No. 39647 (Idaho Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2012)

Opinion

Docket No. 39647 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 596

08-17-2012

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NATHAN WAYNE HUNT, Defendant-Appellant.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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 First Judicial District, State of Idaho,

Kootenai County. Hon. Benjamin R. Simpson, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eighteen years, with a minimum

period of confinement of eight years, for robbery, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, 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 MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Nathan Wayne Hunt pled guilty to robbery. Idaho Code § 18-6501. The district court sentenced Hunt to a unified term of eighteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of eight years. Hunt appeals contending 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, Hunt's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.