State v. Regina Renee Jurries

• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 9, 2017
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 44150/44151

STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 364 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: February 9, 2017 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) REGINA RENEE JURRIES, aka ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED DILWORTH ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. )

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Christopher S. Nye, District Judge.

Judgments of conviction and unified sentence of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for grand theft, and a unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, to run concurrently, for injury to children, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, 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; MELANSON, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM In separate cases, Regina Renee Jurries pleaded guilty to grand theft, Idaho Code § 18- 2403(1), 18-2407(1)(b), and injury to children, I.C. § 18-1501(1). The district court imposed a unified eight-year sentence, with two years determinate, and a unified ten-year sentence, with two years determinate, respectively. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Jurries appeals, contending that her 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

1 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, Jurries’ judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed.