State v. Robert Douglas Converse

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 44156 STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 756 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: October 28, 2016 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) ROBERT DOUGLAS CONVERSE, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant.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. Samuel A. Hoagland, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of fourteen years, for domestic violence in the presence of a child, affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Robert Douglas Converse pled guilty to domestic violence in the presence of a child. Idaho Code §§ 18-903(1), 18-918(2), 18-918(4). The district court sentenced Converse to a unified term of twenty years with fourteen years determinate. Converse 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- 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, Converse’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed. 2