1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 38931

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

DELBERT DANIEL CROSSLEY , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 745

Filed: November 29, 2012
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Renae J. Ho ff , District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eight years, with two years determinate, for sexual battery of a minor child sixteen or seventeen years of age, affirmed ; order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reducti on of sentence, affirmed

. Nevin, Benjamin, McKay & Bartlett LLP; Robyn Fyffe, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

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

PER CURIAM Delbert Daniel Crossley pled guilty to s exual battery of a minor child sixteen or seventeen years of age. Idaho Code § 18

- 1508A . The district court sentenced Crossley to a unified term of eight years, with two years determinate. Crossley filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Crossley appeals, contending his sentence is excessive and the district court abused its discretion in denyin g his Rule 35 motion. 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, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State2 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 defe ndant’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. Next, we review whether the distri ct court erred in denying Crossley’s Rule 35 motion.
A motion for reduction of se ntence under Rule 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 , 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 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 origina l 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 been shown. Therefore, Crossley’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order denying Crossley’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.