State v. Reginald Ivie

• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 18, 2017
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44119

STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 322 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: January 18, 2017 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) REGINALD IVIE, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant.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. John T. Mitchell, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified life sentence, with a minimum period of confinement of seven years, for lewd conduct with a minor, affirmed.

James, Vernon & Weeks, P.A.; Monica Flood Brennan, Coeur d’Alene, for appellant.

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

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; MELANSON, Judge and HUSKEY, Judge ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM Reginald Ivie pleaded guilty to lewd conduct with a minor, Idaho Code § 18-1508. The district court imposed a unified life sentence, with seven years determinate. Ivie 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- 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

1 722, 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, Ivie’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.