State v. Roy Dean Taylor

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44226

STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 417
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: March 28, 2017
)
v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
)
ROY DEAN TAYLOR, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin
Falls County. Hon. G. Richard Bevan, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of confinement of four years, for felony driving under the influence, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; MELANSON, Judge;
and HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Roy Dean Taylor was found guilty of felony driving under the influence, Idaho Code
§§ 18-8004, 18-8005(9). The district court imposed a unified sentence of ten years, with a
minimum period of confinement of four years, to run concurrently with a sentence in a separate
case. Taylor 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, Taylor’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

2