State v. Daley, Jr

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 46635

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: June 21, 2019
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ROBERT LEROY DALEY, JR., ) 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. Melissa Moody, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and aggregate unified sentence of twenty years, with a
minimum period of confinement of four years, for two counts of sexual
exploitation of a child, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, 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; HUSKEY, Judge;
and BRAILSFORD, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Robert Leroy Daley, Jr. pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual exploitation of a child,
Idaho Code § 19-2513. The district court imposed an aggregate twenty-year sentence, with four
years determinate. Daley 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-
15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App.

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

2