State v. Edwardo David Gomez

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44071

STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 803
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: December 2, 2016
)
v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
)
EDWARDO DAVID GOMEZ, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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,
Canyon County. Hon. George A. Southworth, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum
period of confinement of one and one-half years, for possession of a controlled
substance, 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 MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
and HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Edwardo David Gomez pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. Idaho Code
§ 37-2732(c)(1). The district court sentenced Gomez to a unified term of five years with one and
one-half years determinate. Gomez appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion
by imposing an excessive sentence.
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, Gomez’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

2