State v. Lee

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45839

STATE OF IDAHO, )

) Filed: February 12, 2019 Plaintiff-Respondent, )

) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk v. )

) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED DAVID PAUL LEE, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. )

)

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Gem County. Hon. George A. Southworth, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eight years with three years determinate for stalking in the first degree with a persistent violator enhancement, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

________________________________________________

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;

and BRAILSFORD, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM David Paul Lee was found guilty of stalking in the first degree, Idaho Code § 18-7905, with a persistent violator enhancement, I.C. § 19-2514. The district court imposed a unified sentence of eight years with three years determinate. Lee 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-

2

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