Opinion
Docket No. 43541 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 541
05-18-2016
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NICHOLAS ADRIAN ROMO, Defendant-Appellant.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Steven J. Hippler, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and sentences, affirmed. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge
____________________
PER CURIAM
Nicholas Adrian Romo pleaded guilty to trafficking in methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-2732B(a)(4), grand theft by possession of stolen property, I.C. §§ 18-2403(4), -2407(1), -2409, and unlawful possession of a firearm, I.C. § 18-3316, along with a persistent violator enhancement. The district court imposed a unified twenty-year sentence, with six years determinate, for the trafficking in methamphetamine charge with the persistent violator enhancement, a unified seven-year sentence, with two years determinate, for the grand theft charge, and a unified five-year sentence, with one year determinate, for the unlawful possession of a firearm charge, with all sentences to run concurrently. Romo 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, Romo's judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.