From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Lara-Medina

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
May 23, 2017
Docket No. 44664 (Idaho Ct. App. May. 23, 2017)

Opinion

Docket No. 44664 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 469

05-23-2017

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MAURICIO LARA-MEDINA, aka VICTOR URIARTE GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Michael Reardon, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for one count of possession of a controlled substance and one count of felony DUI; and 180-day jail sentence for injury to children, affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, 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; MELANSON, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge

____________________

PER CURIAM

Mauricio Lara-Medina pled guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c); one count of felony operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, I.C. §§ 18-8004, 18-8005(9); and one count of injury to children, I.C. § 18-1501(1). The district court sentenced Lara-Medina to concurrent unified sentences of seven years with three years determinate for possession of a controlled substance and felony DUI charges, and 180-day jail sentence for injury to children. Lara-Medina appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing and executing his sentences. He contends that sufficient consideration of the facts of this case reveals that suspended sentences would better serve the goals of sentencing.

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, Lara-Medina's judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Lara-Medina

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
May 23, 2017
Docket No. 44664 (Idaho Ct. App. May. 23, 2017)
Case details for

State v. Lara-Medina

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MAURICIO LARA-MEDINA, aka VICTOR…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: May 23, 2017

Citations

Docket No. 44664 (Idaho Ct. App. May. 23, 2017)