State v. Zachary Lawrence Taylor ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
    Docket No. 36680
    STATE OF IDAHO,                                  )     2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 524
    )
    Plaintiff-Respondent,                     )     Filed: June 24, 2010
    )
    v.                                               )     Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
    )
    ZACHARY LAWRENCE TAYLOR,                         )     THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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.
    Order revoking probation and reinstating previously suspended unified seven-year
    sentence, with three-year determinate term, for grand theft, affirmed.
    Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Heather M. Carlson, Deputy
    Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
    Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy
    Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
    ______________________________________________
    Before LANSING, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
    and MELANSON, Judge
    PER CURIAM
    Zachary Lawrence Taylor pled guilty to grand theft, I.C. §§ 18-2403(1), 185-2407(1)(b),
    and the district court withheld judgment and placed Taylor on probation. Thereafter, Taylor
    violated the terms of his probation, and the district court revoked Taylor’s withheld judgment
    and imposed a unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum period of three years. However,
    the district court suspended the sentence and placed Taylor on probation. Again Taylor admitted
    to violation of the term of his probation. The district court revoked Taylor’s probation and the
    suspended sentence was ordered into execution. On appeal, Taylor does not challenge the
    district court’s decision to revoke probation, but argues only that this sentence is excessive and
    that the district court should have sua sponte reduced the sentence upon revocation.
    1
    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.
    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).
    When we review a sentence that is ordered into execution following a period of
    probation, we will examine the entire record encompassing events before and after the original
    judgment. State v. Hanington, 
    148 Idaho 26
    , 29, 
    218 P.3d 5
    , 8 (Ct. App. 2009). We base our
    review upon the facts existing when the sentence was imposed as well as events occurring
    between the original sentencing and the revocation of probation. 
    Id.
     Applying these standards,
    and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its
    discretion.
    Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Taylor’s previously
    suspended sentence is affirmed.
    2
    

Document Info

Filed Date: 6/24/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021