Opinion
Docket No. 39320 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 625
09-06-2012
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NATHANIEL FORREST THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Deborah A. Bail, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified life sentence with twenty-year determinate term for rape; and concurrent fifteen-year determinate sentences for domestic violence with traumatic injury, domestic battery, and domestic violence in the presence of a child, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;
and GUTIERREZ, Judge
PER CURIAM
Nathaniel Forrest Thompson was convicted of rape, Idaho Code § 18-6101(4); domestic violence with traumatic injury, I.C. §§ 18-903(a), 18-918(2); domestic battery, I.C. §§ 18-903(a), 18-918(3)(b), 18-918(5); and domestic violence in the presence of a child, I.C. §§ 18-903(a), 18-918(2), 18-918(4), with a persistent violator enhancement, I.C. § 19-2514. The district court sentenced Thompson to a unified life sentence with twenty years determinate for rape, with concurrent fifteen-year determinate sentences for domestic violence with traumatic injury, domestic battery, and domestic violence in the presence of a child. Thompson 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, Thompson's judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.