1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44758

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v. DONALD JOSEPH MAILLOUX, JR. ,
Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 571

Filed: September 1, 2017
Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Michael Reardon , District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and orders revoking probation, affirmed

. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster
, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Ho n. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

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

________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Donald Joseph Mailloux, Jr. pleaded guilty to felony possession of a controlled
substance , Idaho Code § 37

- 2732(c) . The district court imposed a uni fied five

- year sentence, with one and one

- half years determinate

. Mailloux filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion,
which the district court denied. Mailloux appeals contending the district court abused its discretion by refusing to place him on pro bation or to reduce the fixed portion of his sentence

. Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. That discretion includes the trial court’s decision regarding whether a defendant should be placed on probation. I.C. § 19

- 2601(3); State v. R eber , 138 Idaho 275, 278, 61 P.3d 632, 635 (Ct. App. 2002). Both our
standard of review and the factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the2 sentence are well established. 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 sent ence. 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. Next, we review whether the district court erred in d enying Mailloux ’s I.C.R. 35 motion. A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, addressed to
the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton , 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 23, 24 (2006);
State v. Allbee , 1 15 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In presenting an I.C.R. 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the motion. State v. Huffman , 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). In conducting our review of the grant or denial of an I.C.R. 35 motion, we consider the entire record and apply the same criteria used for determining the reasonableness of the original sente nce. State v. Forde , 113 Idaho 21, 22, 740 P.2d 63, 64 (Ct. App. 1987); Lopez , 106 Idaho at 449

- 51, 680 P.2d at 871

- 73. Upon review of the record, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, Mailloux ’s judgment of conviction and sente nce, and the district court’s order denying Mailloux ’s I.C.R. 35 motion, are affirmed.