State v. Jared Webster (Idaho Ct. App. 2014). · Go Syfert
State v. Jared Webster (Idaho Ct. App. 2014). Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for cluster 2718496.
State
v.
Jared Webster
Idaho Court of Appeals.
Aug 18, 2014.
Unpublished
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41695

STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 674 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: August 18, 2014 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) JARED WEBSTER, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY )

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Jefferson County. Hon. Gregory W. Moeller, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of four, for felony injury to a child, affirmed.

Bartholick Law, PLLC; Sean P. Bartholick, Rexburg, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;
and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM Jared Webster pled guilty to felony injury to a child. Idaho Code §§ 18-1501(1), 18-206. The district court sentenced Webster to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years. Webster 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. 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, Webster’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

[*1][*2]