State v. Oxier

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CLINT TERRELL OXIER…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: May 31, 2017

Docket No. 44531 (Idaho Ct. App. May. 31, 2017)

Opinion

Docket No. 44531 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 476

05-31-2017

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CLINT TERRELL OXIER, Defendant-Appellant.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Michael Reardon, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and sentence of ten years determinate with a consecutive sentence of ten years indeterminate for two counts of sexual exploitation of a child, affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; MELANSON, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge

____________________

PER CURIAM

Clint Terrell Oxier pled guilty to two counts of sexual exploitation of a child, Idaho Code § 18-1507(2)(a). The district court imposed a ten-year determinate sentence for Count I and a consecutive ten-year indeterminate sentence for Count II. Oxier appeals, contending that his sentences are 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). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Oxier's judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.