*1 Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; MELANSON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Andrew Garlock pled guilty to battery with the intent to commit a serious felony, I.C. §§ 18-903 and 18-911, and two counts of penetration by a foreign object, I.C. § 18-6608. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Garlock to a unified term of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of fifteen

1

years, for battery with the intent to commit a serious felony; a concurrent unified term of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of fifteen years, for one count of penetration by a foreign object; and a concurrent unified term of life imprisonment, with a minimum period of confinement of fifteen years, for one count of penetration by a foreign object. Garlock filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Garlock 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. 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, Garlock’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.

2