State v. Christopher Lynn Wirfs

• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 29, 2017
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44305

STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 420 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: March 29, 2017 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) CHRISTOPHER LYNN WIRFS, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant.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 unified sentence of twenty-five years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, for felony aggravated battery as enhanced by use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime, and a sentence of five years determinate, to run consecutively, for felony stalking in the first degree, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM Christopher Lynn Wirfs pleaded guilty to felony aggravated battery, Idaho Code §§ 18- 903(a), 907(a), 907(b), as enhanced by felony use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime, I.C. § 19-2520, and felony stalking in the first degree, I.C. § 18-3316. The district court imposed a unified twenty-five year sentence, with five years determinate, and a consecutive determinate five-year sentence respectively. Wirfs appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive.

1 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, Wirfs’ judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.