State v. March

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45992

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: February 13, 2019
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
FRANCIS MARIE MARCH, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Steven J. Hippler, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified life sentence, with a minimum period of
confinement of twenty-seven years, for first degree murder, affirmed.

Dennis Benjamin of Nevin, Benjamin, McKay & Bartlett, LLP, Boise, for
appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy
Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and BRAILSFORD, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Francis Marie March pled guilty to first degree murder. I.C. §§ 18-4001, 18-4003(a), and
18-4003(d). In exchange for her guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district
court sentenced March to a unified term of life imprisonment, with a minimum period of
confinement of twenty-seven years. March appeals, arguing that her 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, March’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

2