State v. Mottaz

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SUSAN K. MOTTAZ…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Mar 25, 2016

Docket No. 43626 (Idaho Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2016)

Opinion

Docket No. 43626 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 450

03-25-2016

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SUSAN K. MOTTAZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

PER CURIAM

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Timothy Hansen, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for felony domestic violence, affirmed. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge

____________________

PER CURIAM

Susan K. Mottaz pled guilty to felony domestic violence (prior felony within fifteen years). I.C. §§ 18-918(5) and 18-903. The district court sentenced Mottaz to a unified term of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years. However, the district court retained jurisdiction and sent Mottaz to participate in the rider program. Mottaz 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, Mottaz's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.