State v. Tappan

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JUSTIN WYNN TAPPAN…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Feb 12, 2013

Docket No. 39963 (Idaho Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2013)

Opinion

Docket No. 39963 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 355

02-12-2013

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JUSTIN WYNN TAPPAN, 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; Russell J. Spencer, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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 Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Jerome County. Hon. John K. Butler, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fourteen years with a minimum period of confinement of two years for possession of methamphetamine with a repeat offender enhancement, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Russell J. Spencer, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

Before LANSING, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Justin Wynn Tappan was convicted of possession of methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1), with a repeat offender enhancement, I.C. § 37-2739. The district court sentenced Tappan to a unified term of fourteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years and ordered the sentence to run consecutive to the sentences in two separate cases. Tappan appeals, contending that 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, Tappan's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.