IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 42276 STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 547 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: July 9, 2015 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) WILLIAM CONRAD VALENTINE, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant.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. Benjamin R. Simpson, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified twenty-year sentence with a minimum period of confinement of eight years for lewd conduct with a child under sixteen, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM William Conrad Valentine pled guilty to lewd conduct with a child under sixteen, Idaho Code § 18-1508. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a unified twenty-year sentence with an eight-year determinate term. Valentine 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-

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, Valentine’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.