IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 40590 STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 699 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: October 3, 2013 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) KEVIN FORREST KENNEDY, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY ) Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. John T. Mitchell, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, for possession of methamphetamine, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sarah E. Tompkins, 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; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge PER CURIAM Kevin Forrest Kennedy was convicted of possession of methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1). The district court sentenced Kennedy to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, suspended the sentence and placed Kennedy on supervised probation for seven years. Kennedy appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive.

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- (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, Kennedy’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.