State v. Hammond

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45894

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: October 22, 2018
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
WILLIAM KARYIM HAMMOND, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bannock County. Hon. Stephen S. Dunn, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twelve years, with a minimum
period of confinement of five years, for discharge of a firearm at an occupied
vehicle, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster,
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 HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
William Karyim Hammond pled guilty to discharge of a firearm at an occupied vehicle,
Idaho Code § 18-3317. The district court imposed a unified sentence of twelve years, with a
minimum period of confinement of five years, and retained jurisdiction. Hammond appeals,
contending that his sentence is excessive and that the district court abused its discretion by
retaining jurisdiction rather than granting his request for probation.
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

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

2