IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 45708 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: October 2, 2018 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED KYLE ANDREW ODOM, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. Lansing L. Haynes, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty-five years, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years, for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon enhancement, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, 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; HUSKEY, Judge; and LORELLO, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Kyle Andrew Odom pleaded guilty to aggravated battery, Idaho Code §§ 18-903, 18- 907(1)(a), with a deadly weapon enhancement, I.C. § 19-2520. The district court imposed a unified twenty-five-year sentence, with ten years determinate. Odom 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, Odom’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.