State v. Sittre

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MARTINA LEE SITTRE…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Oct 13, 2016

Docket No. 44024 (Idaho Ct. App. Oct. 13, 2016)

Opinion

Docket No. 44024 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 728

10-13-2016

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MARTINA LEE SITTRE, Defendant-Appellant.

Eric D. Fredericksen, Interim 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.

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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 Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bannock County. Hon. Stephen S. Dunn, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for possession of a controlled substance, affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, Interim 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 GRATTON, Judge

____________________

PER CURIAM

Martina Lee Sittre pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1). In exchange for her guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court sentenced Sittre to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years. However, the district court retained jurisdiction and sent Sittre to participate in the rider program. Sittre appeals.

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