Idaho Court of Appeals, 2014

State v. Bonnie Valinda Boman

State v. Bonnie Valinda Boman
Idaho Court of Appeals · Decided February 14, 2014

State v. Bonnie Valinda Boman

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 41318 STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 376 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: February 14, 2014 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) BONNIE VALINDA BOMAN, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant.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. Lynn G. Norton, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fourteen years with a minimum period of confinement of five years for grand theft by possession of stolen property, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly E. Smith, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge PER CURIAM Bonnie Valinda Boman was convicted of grand theft by possession of stolen property, Idaho Code §§ 18-2403(4), 18-2407(1), 18-2409. The district court sentenced Boman to a unified term of fourteen years with a minimum period of confinement of five years. Boman appeals, contending that her 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, Boman’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.