Opinion
Docket No. 39748 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 682
10-19-2012
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ANTHONY WAYNE WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ian H. Thomson, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Thomas F. Neville, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and aggregate unified sentences of twenty years, with a
minimum period of confinement of four years, for two counts of grand theft by
possession of stolen property, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ian H. Thomson, 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; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
and MELANSON, Judge
PER CURIAM
Anthony Wayne Walker pled guilty to two counts of grand theft by possession of stolen property. Idaho Code §§ 18-2403(4), 18-2407(1)(b). On the first count, the district court sentenced Walker to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, to run concurrently with Walker's existing sentences for burglary. As to the second count, the district court imposed a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year, to run consecutive to the sentence on the first count and concurrent with Walker's existing burglary sentences. The aggregate sentences imposed were twenty years with four years determinate to run concurrently with Walker's existing burglary sentences. Walker appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing excessive sentences.
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, Walker's judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.