State v. Sean Francis Cox

• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 11, 2017
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44572

STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 577 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: September 11, 2017 ) v. ) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk ) SEAN FRANCIS COX, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY )

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Hon. Joel E. Tingey, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of one and one-half years, for burglary, 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; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM Sean Francis Cox was found guilty of burglary, Idaho Code § 18-1401. The district court imposed a unified eight-year sentence, with one and one-half years determinate. Cox 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, Cox’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.