IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 43880 STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 646 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: August 18, 2016 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) JACOB FREDERICK POOL, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY ) Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin Falls County. Hon. Randy J. Stoker, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of four years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for killing/wasting a trophy mule deer during a closed season, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, 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 Jacob Frederick Pool pled guilty to killing/wasting a trophy mule deer during a closed season, Idaho Code §§ 36-105(3)(c), -202(h)(1), -1401(c)(3), -1402(e)(5), -1404(a). The district court imposed a unified four year sentence, with two years determinate, and retained jurisdiction.

In addition, the district court suspended Pool’s Idaho hunting license for his lifetime. Pool 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, Pool’s judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed.