State v. Benjamin Arthur Annaboli

Idaho Court of Appeals

State v. Benjamin Arthur Annaboli

DecidedDecember 8, 2016

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Benjamin Arthur Annaboli (State v. Benjamin Arthur Annaboli) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Benjamin Arthur Annaboli, (Idaho Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44203

STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 809 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: December 8, 2016 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) BENJAMIN ARTHUR ANNABOLI, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY )

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. Richard S. Christensen, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and aggregate unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, for two counts of intimidation of a witness, affirmed.

Daniel G. Cooper, Coeur d’Alene, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM Benjamin Arthur Annaboli pled guilty to two counts of intimidation of a witness. Idaho Code § 18-2604(3). The district court sentenced Annaboli to an aggregate unified sentence of ten years with five years determinate. Annaboli appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing 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.

1 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, Annaboli’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44203

STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 809 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: December 8, 2016 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) BENJAMIN ARTHUR ANNABOLI, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY )

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. Richard S. Christensen, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and aggregate unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, for two counts of intimidation of a witness, affirmed.

Daniel G. Cooper, Coeur d’Alene, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM Benjamin Arthur Annaboli pled guilty to two counts of intimidation of a witness. Idaho Code § 18-2604(3). The district court sentenced Annaboli to an aggregate unified sentence of ten years with five years determinate. Annaboli appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing 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.

1 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, Annaboli’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Benjamin Arthur Annaboli, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-benjamin-arthur-annaboli-idahoctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack