From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Murphy

Court of Appeals of Idaho
Jun 3, 2024
No. 50702 (Idaho Ct. App. Jun. 3, 2024)

Opinion

50702

06-03-2024

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHEAL DEAN MURPHY, Defendant-Appellant.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Raul R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.


UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin Falls County. Hon. Roger B. Harris, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years, for sexual abuse of a child under sixteen years, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raul R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge; and TRIBE, Judge

PER CURIAM

Micheal Dean Murphy was found guilty of sexual abuse of a child under sixteen years. I.C. § 18-1506. The district court sentenced Murphy to a unified term of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years. Murphy filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Murphy appeals, arguing that his sentence is 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). Our role is limited to determining whether reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion as the district court. State v. Biggs, 168 Idaho 112, 116, 480 P.3d 150, 154 (Ct. App. 2020). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Murphy's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Murphy

Court of Appeals of Idaho
Jun 3, 2024
No. 50702 (Idaho Ct. App. Jun. 3, 2024)
Case details for

State v. Murphy

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHEAL DEAN MURPHY…

Court:Court of Appeals of Idaho

Date published: Jun 3, 2024

Citations

No. 50702 (Idaho Ct. App. Jun. 3, 2024)