State
v.
Freeman

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHOJan 29, 2016
Docket No. 43116 (Idaho Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2016)

Docket No. 43116 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 357

01-29-2016

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CARL DEANGELO FREEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Maya P. Waldron, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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 Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Deborah A. Bail, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, for aggravated battery, affirmed. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Maya P. Waldron, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge

____________________

PER CURIAM

Carl Deangelo Freeman pled guilty to aggravated battery. I.C. §§ 18-903(a) and 18-907(a). The district court sentenced Freeman to a unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years. Freeman filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Freeman 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. 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, Freeman's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.