Opinion
Docket No. 39345 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 640
09-18-2012
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHAEL JAMES LEE, Defendant-Appellant.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Patrick H. Owen, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of life, with twenty-five years determinate, for murder in the first degree; a consecutive, unified sentence of twenty years, with seven years determinate, for kidnapping in the second degree; and a concurrent, unified sentence of twenty years, with seven years determinate, for battery with the intent to commit a serious felony, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Before LANSING, Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
and MELANSON, Judge
PER CURIAM
Michael James Lee pled guilty to murder in the first degree, Idaho Code §§ 18-4001, 18-4002, 18-4003(a); kidnapping in the second degree, Idaho Code §§ 18-4501, 18-4503; and battery with the intent to commit a serious felony, Idaho Code §§ 18-903, 18-911. The district court sentenced Lee to a unified term of life, with twenty-five years determinate, for murder in the first degree; a unified term of twenty years, with seven years determinate, for kidnapping in the second degree, to run consecutive to Lee's sentence for murder; and a unified term of twenty years, with seven years determinate, for battery with the intent to commit a serious felony, to run concurrently with Lee's sentences for murder and kidnapping. The total combined sentences resulted in a unified term of life, with thirty-two years determinate. Lee appeals, contending 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). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.
Therefore, Lee's judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.