IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket Nos. 46213/46214 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: April 19, 2019 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED NICKOLAUS AARON OLDENBURG, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Deborah A. Bail, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for burglary, and a unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum confinement of three years, for grand theft, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, 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; HUSKEY, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Nickolaus Aaron Oldenburg pleaded guilty to burglary, Idaho Code § 18-1401, and grand theft, I.C. §§ 18-2403(1), 18-2407(1)(b), and 18-2409. For each offense, the district court imposed a unified ten-year sentence, with three years determinate, to run concurrently.

Oldenburg 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-

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, Oldenburg’s judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed.