State v. Thomas Benjamin Laird Amended

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 42464 STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 469A ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: April 21, 2015 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) THOMAS BENJAMIN LAIRD, ) AMENDED OPINION ) THE COURT’S PRIOR OPINION Defendant-Appellant. ) DATED APRIL 17, 2015 ) IS HEREBY AMENDED ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County.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 concurrent unified sentences of ten years with three years determinate for burglary and grand theft, affirmed. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, 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 GRATTON, Judge PER CURIAM Thomas Benjamin Laird was convicted of burglary, Idaho Code § 18-1401, and grand theft, I.C. §§ 18-2403(1), 18-2407(1)(b), and 18-2409. The district court imposed concurrent unified sentences of ten years with three years determinate. Laird appeals, contending that his sentences are excessive. 1 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, Laird’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed. 2