State v. Blaine Lee Blair

• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 18, 2017
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44637

STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 585 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: September 18, 2017 ) v. ) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk ) BLAINE LEE BLAIR, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY )

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

Judgment of conviction and concurrent, unified sentences of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, for two counts of sexual exploitation of a child, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Erik R. Lehtinen, 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 Blaine Lee Blair pleaded guilty to two counts of felony sexual exploitation of a child, Idaho Code § 18-1507. The district court imposed concurrent, unified twenty-year sentences, with five years determinate. Blair 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.

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, Blair’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.