Idaho Court of Appeals, 2018

State v. Ray

State v. Ray
Idaho Court of Appeals · Decided July 11, 2018

State v. Ray

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 45604 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: July 11, 2018 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED MICHAEL LYNN RAY, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin Falls County. Hon. Jon J. Shindurling, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and sentence of seven years determinate, for possession of a controlled substance, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Lara E. Anderson, 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 LORELLO, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Michael Lynn Ray pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. Idaho Code § 37- 2432(c)(1). The district court sentenced Ray to a determinate term of seven years to be served consecutively to a previous unrelated sentence. Ray appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence.

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

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