               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                        Docket No. 39563

STATE OF IDAHO,                                   )     2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 699
                                                  )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                      )     Filed: October 31, 2012
                                                  )
v.                                                )     Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
                                                  )
CLINTON IRVIN WAGEMAN,                            )     THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Cheri C. Copsey, District Judge.

       Order revoking probation and withheld judgment and imposing unified sentence
       of ten years, with six years determinate, affirmed.

       Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jordan E. Taylor, Deputy
       Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

                         Before LANSING, Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
                                  and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM
       Clinton Irvin Wageman pled guilty to injury to a child. Idaho Code § 18-1501(1). The
district court withheld judgment and placed Wageman on probation.             Several years later,
Wageman admitted to violating terms of the probation. The district court consequently revoked
probation and the withheld judgment and imposed a unified sentence of ten years, with six years
determinate. Wageman appeals, contending the district court abused its discretion by revoking
Wageman’s withheld judgment and imposing an excessive sentence.
       An appellate review of a sentence is based on an abuse of discretion standard. State v.
Burdett, 134 Idaho 271, 276, 1 P.3d 299, 304 (Ct. App. 2000). Where a sentence is not illegal,
the appellant has the burden to show that it is unreasonable and, thus, a clear abuse of discretion.


                                                 1
State v. Brown, 121 Idaho 385, 393, 825 P.2d 482, 490 (1992). A sentence may represent such
an abuse of discretion if it is shown to be unreasonable upon the facts of the case. State v. Nice,
103 Idaho 89, 90, 645 P.2d 323, 324 (1982). A sentence of confinement is reasonable if it
appears at the time of sentencing that confinement is necessary “to accomplish the primary
objective of protecting society and to achieve any or all of the related goals of deterrence,
rehabilitation or retribution applicable to a given case.” State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650
P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). Where an appellant contends that the sentencing court imposed
an excessively harsh sentence, we conduct an independent review of the record, having regard
for the nature of the offense, the character of the offender and the protection of the public
interest.   State v. Reinke, 103 Idaho 771, 772, 653 P.2d 1183, 1884 (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).
        The issue before this Court is not whether the sentence is one that we would have
imposed, but whether the sentence is plainly excessive under any reasonable view of the facts.
Toohill, 103 Idaho at 568, 650 P.2d at 710. If reasonable minds might differ as to whether the
sentence is excessive, we are not free to substitute our view for that of the district court. Id.
Having thoroughly reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused
its discretion. Therefore, the district court’s order revoking probation and the withheld judgment
and imposing a unified sentence of ten years, with six years determinate, is affirmed.




                                                 2
