From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Jones

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Dec 1, 2016
Docket No. 44122 (Idaho Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2016)

Opinion

Docket No. 44122 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 800

12-01-2016

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. QUAYD JOHN CHARLES JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Maya P. Waldron, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.


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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Timothy L. Hansen, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for burglary and concurrent unified sentence of twenty-eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen years, affirmed Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Maya P. Waldron, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge

____________________

PER CURIAM

Quayd John Charles Jones pled guilty to burglary, I.C. § 18-1401, and lewd conduct with a minor under the age of sixteen years, I.C. 18-1508. In exchange for his guilty pleas, additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Jones to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for burglary and a concurrent unified term of twenty-eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen years. Jones appeals.

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


Summaries of

State v. Jones

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Dec 1, 2016
Docket No. 44122 (Idaho Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2016)
Case details for

State v. Jones

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. QUAYD JOHN CHARLES JONES…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Dec 1, 2016

Citations

Docket No. 44122 (Idaho Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2016)