IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 42631
STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 583
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: August 6, 2015
)
v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
)
PERRY LYNN RAY, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Richard D. Greenwood, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of confinement of two years, for possession of a controlled substance with intent
to deliver, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, 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; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
and GRATTON, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Perry Lynn Ray pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver.
I.C. § 37-2732(a). In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The
district court sentenced Ray to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of
confinement of two years. Ray filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Ray
appeals.
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, Ray’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
2