1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41092

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

RICKY LEE SEPEDA ,
Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 309

Filed: January 6, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Thir d Judicial District, State of Idaho, Gem County. Hon. George A. Southworth , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years , for rape , affirmed ; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affir med

. 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 GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM Ricky Lee Sepeda pled guilty to rape . I.C. § 18

- 6101(4) . In exchange for his guilty plea,

the state dismissed an allegation that Sepeda was a persistent violator. The district court

sentenced Sepeda to a unified term of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years

. Sepeda filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Sepeda 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.

See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 101 4

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State
v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill , 1032 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the length of a sentence,

we consider the defendant’s entire sentenc e. 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 deny ing Sepeda ’s Rule 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. K nighton , 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 sentence is excessive in light of new or additional

information sub sequently 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 crite ria 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 review of
the record, we conclude no abuse of discretion has bee n shown.
Therefore, Sepeda ’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order denying Sepeda ’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.