State v. Torres

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45737

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: November 8, 2018
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
NATHAN RAY TORRES, ) 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. Ned C. Williamson, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum
period of confinement of three years, for battery on a police/peace officer or
sheriff, 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
Nathan Ray Torres pled guilty to battery on a police/peace officer or sheriff. I.C. § 19-
2513. The district court sentenced Torres to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period
of confinement of three years. Torres appeals, arguing 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-

1
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, Torres’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

2