State v. Nedbalek

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JEANETTE M. NEDBALEK…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Oct 25, 2017

Docket No. 44903 (Idaho Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2017)

Opinion

Docket No. 44903 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 626

10-25-2017

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JEANETTE M. NEDBALEK, Defendant-Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bannock County. Hon. Robert C. Naftz, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, 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

Jeanette M. Nedbalek pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, methamphetamine. Idaho Code § 37-2732(a)(1)(A). The district court sentenced Nedbalek to a unified term of eight years with three years determinate. Nedbalek appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence.

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, Nedbalek's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.