IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 43272 STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 462 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: April 4, 2016 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) SCOTT DENNIS DAVIS, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant.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. Jason D. Scott, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and sentence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Scott Dennis Davis pleaded guilty to aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, Idaho Code § 18-915(1), grand theft, I.C. §§ 18-2403(1), -2407(1)(b), -2409, and burglary, I.C. § 18-1401. The district court imposed a ten-year determinate sentence for the aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, a unified ten-year sentence, with seven years determinate, for the grand theft charge, and a ten-year indeterminate sentence for the burglary charge. All sentences were ordered to run consecutively for an aggregate thirty-year sentence, with seventeen years determinate. Davis appeals.

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.

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, Davis’s judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed.