State v. Barclay

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 45725/45726

STATE OF IDAHO, )

) Filed: October 19, 2018 Plaintiff-Respondent, )

) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk v. )

) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ANTHONY JAMES IRA BARCLAY, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. )

)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Jason D. Scott, District Judge.

Judgments of conviction and consecutive unified sentences of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for burglary; ten years determinate for failure to notify of death; and five years determinate for destruction of evidence, affirmed.

J. E. Sutton & Associates; Joshua P. vanSwearingen, 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 In consolidated cases, Anthony James Ira Barclay pled guilty to burglary, Idaho Code § 18-1401; failure to notify of death, I.C. § 19-4301A(3); and destruction of evidence, I.C. § 18-2603. The district court imposed consecutive sentences of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for burglary; ten years determinate for failure to notify of death; and five years determinate for destruction of evidence. Barclay appeals, contending that his sentences are excessive.

2

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, Barclay’s judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed.