IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 45264 STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2018 Unpublished Opinion No. 360 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: February 20, 2018 ) v. ) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk ) JACOB TYLER ANDERSON, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant.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. Jonathan Medema, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of five years with two years determinate for two counts of sexual exploitation of a child, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, 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 GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Jacob Tyler Anderson pled guilty to two counts of sexual exploitation of a child, Idaho Code § 18-1507(2)(a). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed concurrent unified sentences of five years with two years determinate.

Anderson appeals, contending that his sentences are 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, Anderson’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.