State v. Dee Wayne Dyke

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 38720

STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2011 Unpublished Opinion No. 752
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: December 20, 2011
)
v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
)
DEE WAYNE DYKE, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Michael E. Wetherell, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fourteen years, with a minimum
period of confinement of five years, for grand theft and concurrent unified
sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for
burglary, affirmed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Diane M. Walker, 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; LANSING, Judge;
and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM
Dee Wayne Dyke pled guilty to grand theft, I.C. §§ 18-2403(1), 2407(1)(b), and burglary,
I.C. § 18-1401. The district court sentenced Dyke to a unified term of fourteen years, with a
minimum period of confinement of five years, for grand theft and a concurrent unified term of
ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for burglary. Dyke appeals.
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, Dyke’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.

2