IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 42504
STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 535
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: June 29, 2015
)
v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
)
RILEY O’SHAUGHNESSY BEAMAN, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Michael E. Wetherell, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum
period of confinement of two years, for felony driving under the influence,
affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________
Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;
and GUTIERREZ, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Riley O’Shaughnessy Beaman pled guilty to felony driving under the influence. I.C. §§
18-8004 and 18-8005(6), (9). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed.
The district court sentenced Beaman to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of
confinement of two years. Beaman 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
1
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, Beaman’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
2