From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. King

Court of Appeals of Idaho
Oct 17, 2024
No. 51253 (Idaho Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2024)

Opinion

51253

10-17-2024

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LARRY OTTIS KING, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.


UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonner County. Hon. Lamont C. Berecz, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and ten unified, concurrent sentences of ten years with a minimum period of confinement of five years on each of ten counts of sexual exploitation of a child, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge; and TRIBE, Judge

PER CURIAM

Larry Ottis King, Jr. pled guilty to ten counts of sexual exploitation of a child, Idaho Code § 18-1507(2)(a). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed concurrent, unified terms of ten years with five years determinate on each count. King appeals, contending that 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). Our role is limited to determining whether reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion as the district court. State v. Biggs, 168 Idaho 112, 116, 480 P.3d 150, 154 (Ct. App. 2020).

Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, King's judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. King

Court of Appeals of Idaho
Oct 17, 2024
No. 51253 (Idaho Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2024)
Case details for

State v. King

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LARRY OTTIS KING, JR.…

Court:Court of Appeals of Idaho

Date published: Oct 17, 2024

Citations

No. 51253 (Idaho Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2024)