State v. Bruno Antonio Santos-Dominguez

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket Nos. 38990/38991 STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 448 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: April 17, 2012 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) BRUNO ANTONIO SANTOS- ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED DOMINGUEZ, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Blaine County. Hon. Robert J. Elgee, District Judge. Judgments of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of fourteen years with a minimum period of confinement of eight years, for trafficking in methamphetamine, and ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, for delivery of cocaine, affirmed. Silvey Law Office LTD; Greg S. Silvey, Star, 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 In these consolidated appeals, Bruno Antonio Santos-Dominguez pled guilty to trafficking in methamphetamine (docket number 38991). Idaho Code § 37-2732B(a)(4)(B). The district court sentenced Santos-Dominguez to a unified term of fourteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of eight years. Santos-Dominguez also pled guilty to delivery of cocaine (docket number 38990). Idaho Code § 37-2732(a)(1)(A). The district court sentenced Santos- Dominguez to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, and ordered the sentence to run concurrent with the sentence in docket number 38991. Santos- 1 Dominguez 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, Santos-Dominguez’s judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed. 2