State v. Faulkenberry

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45620

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: July 3, 2018
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JEREMIAH JAMES FAULKENBERRY, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Kootenai County. Hon. John T. Mitchell, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of four years, with a minimum period of
confinement of two years, for possession of a controlled substance,
methamphetamine, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford,
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
Jeremiah James Faulkenberry pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance,
methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1). The district court imposed a unified sentence of
four years, with two years determinate, and retained jurisdiction. Faulkenberry 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, Faulkenberry’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

2