Opinion
Docket No. 44345 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 651
11-21-2017
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SAMARI PRENTICE WINN, Defendant-Appellant.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenevieve C. Swinford, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Karel A. Lehrman, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Lynn G. Norton, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of life, with forty years determinate, for two counts of aiding and abetting first degree murder and concurrent fifteen-year determinate sentence for one count of aiding and abetting attempted first degree murder, affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenevieve C. Swinford, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge
____________________
PER CURIAM
Samari Prentice Winn was found guilty of two counts of aiding and abetting first degree murder, Idaho Code §§ 18-4001, 18-4002, 18-4003(c), and one count of aiding and abetting attempted first degree murder, I.C. §§ 18-4001, 18-4002, 18-4003(a), 18-204, 18-306. The district court imposed concurrent unified sentences of life, with forty years determinate, for aiding and abetting first degree murder and a concurrent fifteen-year determinate sentence for aiding and abetting attempted first degree murder. Winn 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, Winn's judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.