State v. Thomas Maurice Massey

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 39100 STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 361 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: February 10, 2012 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) THOMAS MAURICE MASSEY, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant.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. Thomas F. Neville, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fourteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, affirmed. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ Before LANSING, Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge PER CURIAM Thomas Maurice Massey pled guilty to an amended charge of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. I.C. § 37-2732(a). In exchange for his guilty plea, the state agreed not to pursue an allegation that Massey was a persistent violator. The district court sentenced Massey to a unified term of fourteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years. Massey appeals. 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- 1 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, Massey’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed. 2