State v. Perkins

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DANIEL WAYNE PERKINS…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Feb 12, 2013

Docket No. 39882 (Idaho Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2013)

Opinion

Docket No. 39882 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 359

02-12-2013

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DANIEL WAYNE PERKINS, Defendant-Appellant.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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 E. Wetherell, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with three years determinate, for failure to register as a sex offender, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Daniel Wayne Perkins pled guilty to failure to register as a sex offender. Idaho Code §§ 18-8311, 18-8309. The district court sentenced Perkins to a unified term of ten years, with three years determinate. Perkins appeals, contending 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). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

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