State v. Woodhall

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHAEL ROBERT WOODHALL…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Feb 3, 2012

Docket No. 38975 (Idaho Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2012)

Opinion

Docket No. 38975

02-03-2012

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHAEL ROBERT WOODHALL, 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; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

PER CURIAM

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 350

Stephen W. Kenyon, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Jon J. Shindurling, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for delivery of methamphetamine, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, 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 MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Michael Robert Woodhall was convicted of delivery of methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-2732(a)(1)(A). The district court sentenced Woodhall to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, to run consecutively with a previously imposed sentence in a separate case. Woodhall appeals, contending that his sentence is 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, Woodhall's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.