State v. Jeremy Dean McCullough

• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 13, 2013
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40681

STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 625 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: August 13, 2013 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) JEREMY DEAN McCULLOUGH, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant.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. Ronald J. Wilper, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty-five years, with a minimum period of confinement of fifteen years, for sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen years, and two consecutive, indeterminate sentences of ten years for two counts of possession of sexually exploitative material, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before LANSING, Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM Jeremy Dean McCullough was convicted of sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen years, Idaho Code § 18-1506, and two counts of possession of sexually exploitative material, I.C. § 18-1507A. The district court sentenced McCullough to a unified term of twenty- five years with a minimum period of confinement of fifteen years for sexual abuse of a child, and two consecutive, indeterminate sentences of ten years for two counts of possession of sexually exploitative material. McCullough appeals, contending that his sentences are 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, McCullough’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.