State v. Misty Dawn Sykes

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42904

STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 631
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: September 16, 2015
)
v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
)
MISTY DAWN SYKES, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Lynn G. Norton, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum
period of confinement of one year, for grand theft by possession of stolen
property, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Eric D. Fredericksen, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
and GRATTON, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Misty Dawn Sykes pled guilty to grand theft by possession of stolen property, Idaho
Code §§ 18-2403(4), 18-2407(1), 18-2409. The district court imposed a unified sentence of five
years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year. Sykes 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, Sykes’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

2