State v. Shawn Paul Beery

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43221

STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 316
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: January 8, 2016
)
v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
)
SHAWN PAUL BEERY, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Cheri C. Copsey, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum
period of confinement of five years, for enticement of a child through use of the
internet or other communication device and judgment of conviction and
consecutive indeterminate term of ten years for or sexual exploitation of a child,
affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, 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 MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
and HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
In District Court Case No. CR-2014-6895, Shawn Paul Beery pled guilty to enticement of
a child through use of the internet or other communication device. I.C. § 18-1509A. In District
Court Case No. CR-2014-8428, Beery pled guilty to sexual exploitation of a child. I.C. § 18-
1507(2)(a). In exchange for his guilty pleas, additional charges were dismissed. The district
court sentenced Beery to a unified term of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement

1
of ten years, for enticement of a child through use of the internet or other communication device
and a consecutive indeterminate term of ten years for sexual exploitation of a child. Beery
appeals.
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, Beery’s judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed.

2