Opinion
Docket No. 44503 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 401
03-16-2017
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DEVIN CLAYTON CRAWFORD, Defendant-Appellant.
Nevin, Benjamin, McKay & Bartlett, LLP; Deborah Whipple, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Hon. Bruce L. Pickett, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of thirty-five years, with a minimum period of confinement of twelve years, for kidnapping in the second degree with enhancement, affirmed. Nevin, Benjamin, McKay & Bartlett, LLP; Deborah Whipple, 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
Devin Clayton Crawford pled guilty to kidnapping in the second degree with a deadly weapon enhancement. Idaho Code §§ 18-4501, 18-4503, 19-2520. The district court sentenced Crawford to a unified term of thirty-five years with twelve years determinate. Crawford appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence.
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 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, Crawford's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.