State v. Wise

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TONY RAY WISE…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Apr 19, 2019

Docket No. 46525 (Idaho Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2019)

Opinion

Docket No. 46525

04-19-2019

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TONY RAY WISE, Defendant-Appellant.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

PER CURIAM

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Hon. Dane H. Watkins, Jr., District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year, for possession of sexually exploitative material, affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, 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; HUSKEY, Judge; and LORELLO, Judge

____________________

PER CURIAM

Tony Ray Wise pled guilty to possession of sexually exploitative material. Idaho Code § 18-1507(2)(a). The district court sentenced Wise to a unified term of ten years with one year determinate. Wise appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence.

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, Wise's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.