State v. Smith

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45714

STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: May 3, 2019 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED DAKOTAH V. SMITH, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) )

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Jason D. Scott, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and aggregate unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of three and one-half years, for vehicular manslaughter, felony, and aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, 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; HUSKEY, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM Dakotah V. Smith was found guilty of vehicular manslaughter, felony, Idaho Code § 18- 4006(3)(b), and aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol, felony, I.C. § 18-8006. For the two felonies, the district court imposed an aggregate, unified sentence of fifteen years, with three and one-half years determinate. Smith 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-

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