State v. Sethen Simeon Dyerson

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44876

STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2018 Unpublished Opinion No. 313
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: January 8, 2018
)
v. ) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
)
SETHEN SIMEON DYERSON, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Kootenai County. Hon. Richard S. Christensen, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eight years, with a minimum
period of confinement of five years, for grand theft and concurrent unified
sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for
felony eluding a police officer, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. 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
Sethen Simeon Dyerson was found guilty of grand theft, I.C. §§ 18-2403(1); 18-
2407(1)(b)(1); and 18-204; felony eluding a police officer, I.C. §§ 49-4902(2); and being a
persistent violator, I.C. § 19-2514. The district court sentenced Dyerson to a unified term of
eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, for grand theft and a
concurrent unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for
felony eluding a police officer. However, the district court retained jurisdiction. Thereafter, the

1
district court suspended the sentences and placed Dyerson on probation. Dyerson appeals,
claiming 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, Dyerson’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.

2