Opinion
Docket Nos. 41860 & 41941 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 735
09-23-2014
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TYLER JAMES LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly E. Smith, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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 Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Molly J. Huskey, District Judge. Judgments of conviction and unified sentence of six years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, and concurrent unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for two counts of burglary, affirmed. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly E. Smith, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
__________
Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge PER CURIAM
In Docket No. 41860, Tyler James Lewis pled guilty to one count of burglary. I.C. §§ 18-1401, 18-1403. The district court sentenced Lewis to a unified term of six years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years. In Docket No. 41941, Lewis pled guilty to one count of burglary. In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court sentenced Lewis to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, to run concurrent with his other burglary sentence. Lewis filed I.C.R. 35 motions for reduction of his sentences, which the district court denied. Lewis 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, Lewis's judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed.