Opinion
Docket No. 39475 Docket No. 39476 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 601
08-24-2012
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JODY PATRICK TIEDEMANN, 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; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Michael E. Wetherell, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and consecutive, unified sentence of ten years, with two years determinate, for failure to register as a sex offender, affirmed; judgment of conviction and concurrent, unified sentence of seven years, with three years determinate, for grand theft, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;
and GUTIERREZ, Judge
PER CURIAM
In docket number 39475, Jody Patrick Tiedemann pled guilty to failure to register as a sex offender, Idaho Code §§ 18-8309, 18-8311. The district court sentenced Tiedemann to a unified term of ten years, with two years determinate, to run consecutively to Tiedemann's sentence in a prior case. In docket number 39476, Tiedemann pled guilty to grand theft, Idaho Code §§ 18-2403(1), 18-2407(1)(b). The district court sentenced Tiedemann to a unified term of seven years, with three years determinate, to run concurrently with his sentence in docket number 39475 and concurrently with his sentence in the prior case. Tiedemann appeals. The two cases have been consolidated on appeal.
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, Tiedemann's judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed.