State v. Sandra Perez Cantu

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 36931

STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 696 )

Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: November 3, 2010 )

v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk )

SANDRA PEREZ CANTU, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY )

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Cassia County. Hon. Michael R. Crabtree, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and suspended unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for grand theft by possession of a stolen credit card, affirmed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Jordan E. Taylor, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM Sandra Perez Cantu was convicted of grand theft by possession of a stolen credit card, Idaho Code §§ 18-2403, 18-2407(1)(b)(3). The district court imposed a unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, suspended the sentence, and placed Cantu on supervised probation for three years. Cantu appeals, contending that the 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 a 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, Cantu’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.