State v. Michael Mathew Geesen

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 40531 STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 648 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: August 29, 2013 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) MICHAEL MATHEW GEESEN, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant.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, Twin Falls County. Hon. Randy J. Stoker, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, affirmed. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge PER CURIAM Michael Mathew Geesen was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, Idaho Code § 37-2732(a)(1)(B). The district court sentenced Geesen to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years. Geesen 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. 1 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, Geesen’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed. 2