State v. Tyler Cliff Knarr

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 44714 STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 481 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: May 31, 2017 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) TYLER CLIFF KNARR, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant.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 Reardon, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years with a minimum period of confinement of twelve years for trafficking in heroin, affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; MELANSON, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Tyler Cliff Knarr pled guilty to trafficking in heroin with a second trafficking offense enhancement. Idaho Code §§ 37-2732(c), 37-2732B(a)(7). The district court sentenced Knarr to a unified sentence of twenty years with twelve years determinate. Knarr appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence. 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, Knarr’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed. 2