1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42750

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

CODY BARZEE ,
Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 612

Filed: September 2, 2015
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Hon. Dane H. Watkins, Jr. , District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year, for rape, affirmed ; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, 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 MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Cody Barzee pled guilty to rape . Idaho Code § 18

- 6101(2) . The district court sentenced
Barzee to a unified term of eight years with one year determinate

. Barzee filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Barzee appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence and by denying his Rule 35 motion for a reduction
of sentence. 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 ar e well established.2 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 t he record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion. Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Barzee ’s Rule 35 motion. A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for lenien cy, addressed to
the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton , 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 23, 24 (2006);
State v. Allbee , 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sent ence 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 a Rule 35 motion, we consider the entire record and apply the same criteria used for determining the reasonableness of the original sentence. 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 r eview of the record, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, Barzee ’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order denying Barzee ’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.