State v. Ronnie Gene Beals

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41330

STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 803 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: November 6, 2014 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) RONNIE GENE BEALS, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY )

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Molly J. Huskey, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of life, with a minimum period of confinement of 25 years, for battery with the intent to commit lewd and lascivious conduct, with mandatory minimum and persistent violator enhancements, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM Ronnie Gene Beals was found guilty of battery with the intent to commit lewd and lascivious conduct, Idaho Code §§ 18-903(b), 18-911, with mandatory minimum and persistent violator sentencing enhancements, I.C. §§ 19-2520G(2), 19-2514. The district court imposed a unified life sentence, with 25 years determinate. Beals appeals. 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.

1 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, Beals’ judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.