State v. George Roark

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43166

STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 313
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: January 7, 2016
)
v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
)
GEORGE ROARK, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Washington County. Hon. Susan E. Wiebe, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of confinement of three years, for felony operating a motor vehicle while under
the influence of alcohol, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, 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; GRATTON, Judge;
and HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
George Roark was found guilty of felony operating a motor vehicle while under the
influence of alcohol, Idaho Code §§ 18-8004, 18-8005(9). The district court imposed a unified
sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years. Roark 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-

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, Roark’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

2