From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Matthews

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Aug 29, 2017
Docket No. 44666 (Idaho Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2017)

Opinion

Docket No. 44666 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 562

08-29-2017

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PAULINE REBECCA MATTHEWS, Defendant-Appellant.

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


Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bingham County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for felony possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, 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; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge

____________________

PER CURIAM

Pauline Rebecca Matthews pleaded guilty to felony possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1). The district court imposed a unified seven-year sentence, with three years determinate. Matthews filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion which the district court denied. Matthews appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion by ordering execution of her sentence rather than retaining jurisdiction.

Matthews does not appeal from the denial of her Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion. --------

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). Whether to retain jurisdiction is a matter within the sound discretion of the district court. State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 205-06, 786 P.2d 596-97 (Ct. App.1990). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Matthews' judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Matthews

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Aug 29, 2017
Docket No. 44666 (Idaho Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2017)
Case details for

State v. Matthews

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PAULINE REBECCA MATTHEWS…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Aug 29, 2017

Citations

Docket No. 44666 (Idaho Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2017)