1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42878

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

LAWRENCE SCOTT ANDRUS ,
Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 689

Filed: October 30, 2015
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin Falls County. Hon. Randy J. Stoker , District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years with two years determinate for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence, affirmed ; order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly E. Smith , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for responden t.

________________________________________________ Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________ PER CURIAM
Lawrence Scott Andrus pled guilty to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence
of alcohol . Idaho Code § 18

- 8004, 18

- 8005(6)

. The district court sentenced Andrus to a unified
sentence of ten years with two years determinate

. Andrus filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the
district court denied. Andrus appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence and by denying his Rule 35 motion

. Sen tencing 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.2

See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 1 5 (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. Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Andrus ’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. Knighton , 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 23, 24 (2006);
State v. Allbee , 115 Idaho 8 45, 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. Huff man , 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. F orde , 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, Andrus ’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the distr ict court’s order denying Andrus ’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.