1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40842

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

RICHARD DEAN HENDERSON , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 366

Filed: February 7 , 2014
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS I S AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fou rth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Melissa Moody , District Judge.
Order revoking probation and reinstating previously suspended unified three

- year sentence with one

- year determinate term for aggravated assault
, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Pu blic Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellan t.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

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

PER CURIAM
Richard Dean Henderson pled guilty to aggravated assault , Idaho Code § 18

- 901(b), and the district court imposed a unified three

- year sentence with a one

- year determinate term. The court suspended the sentence and placed Henderson on probation. This probation was subsequently revoked an d the suspended sentence ordered into execution. Henderson filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of his sentence, which the district court denied. On appeal, Henderson does not challenge the district court’s decision to revoke probation, but argues
that the district court abused its discretion in failing to sua sponte reduce his sentence upon revoking probation and in denying his I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction o f sentence.2 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 and need not be repeated here. 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).
When we review a sentence that is ordered into execution following a period of probation, we will examine the entire record encompassing events before and after the original judgment. State v. Hanington , 148 Idaho 26, 29, 218 P.3d 5, 8 (Ct. App. 2009). We base our review upon the facts existing when the sentence was imposed as well as events occurring between the original sentencing and the revocation of the probation. Id

. Thus, this Court will
consider the elements of the record before the trial court that are properly made part of the record

on a ppeal and are relevant to the defendant’s contention that the trial court should have reduced the sentence sua sponte upon revocation of probation

. State v. Morgan , 153 Idaho 618, 621, 288 P.3d 835, 838 (Ct. App. 2012).
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 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). Upon review of the record, including the new information submitted with Henderson’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude
no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Henderson ’s previously suspended sentence and the order denying Henderson’s Rule 35 motion are affirmed.