State v. Jason Anthony Edwards

• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 17, 2017
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44482

STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 404 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: March 17, 2017 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) JASON ANTHONY EDWARDS, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant.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. Lansing L. Haynes, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and consecutive unified sentences of fifteen years indeterminate for attempted first degree kidnapping; twenty years determinate for battery with intent to commit a serious felony; and twenty years, with ten years determinate, for aggravated assault with an enhancement for use of a deadly weapon, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, 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 MELANSON, Judge ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM Jason Anthony Edwards pled guilty to attempted first degree kidnapping (Count I), Idaho Code §§ 18-306, 18-4501(1), 18-4502; battery with intent to commit a serious felony (Count II), I.C. §§ 18-903, 18-911; and aggravated assault with an enhancement for use of a deadly weapon (Count III), I.C. §§ 18-901, 18-905. The district court imposed consecutive unified sentences of fifteen years indeterminate on Count I; twenty years determinate on Count II; and twenty years,

1 with ten years determinate, on Count III. Edwards appeals, contending that his sentences are 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, Edwards’ judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.