State v. Diego Morales Peregrina

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 39565 STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 683 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: October 19, 2012 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) DIEGO MORALES PEREGRINA, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant.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. Darla S. Williamson, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and consecutive unified aggregate sentences of forty years, with a minimum period of confinement of twenty years, for two counts of aggravated battery, with enhancement, use of a firearm, and unlawful possession of a firearm, affirmed. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, 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; LANSING, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge PER CURIAM Diego Morales Peregrina was found guilty of two counts of aggravated battery, with enhancement, use of a firearm, and unlawful possession of a firearm (I.C. § 18-3316). The district court sentenced Peregrina to a unified term of forty years, with a minimum period of confinement of twenty years for one count of aggravated battery, and enhanced by an additional determinate period of ten years for use of a firearm or deadly weapon; an indeterminate sentence of fifteen years for one count of aggravated battery; an indeterminate sentence of five years for unlawful possession of a firearm. All sentences are to run consecutive for a total unified 1 sentence of forty years with twenty years determinate. Peregrina appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing excessive sentences. 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, Peregrina’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed. 2