1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42983

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

BENJAMAN T. HINES JR. ,
Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 716

Filed: November 16, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Joel E. Tingey , District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and sentence; and o rder denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenevieve C. Swinford , 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; GRA TTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Benjaman T. Hines Jr. entered an Alford 1 plea to possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37

- 2732(c)(1)

. The district court imposed a unified seven

- year sentence, with two years determinate, suspended the sentence
, and placed Hines on a 365

- day period of retained jurisdiction

. Prior to completing his retained jurisdiction, Hines filed two

1 See North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25 (1970).2

separate I daho Criminal Rule 35 motion s . The district court denied both motions

. 2 Hines 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 reasonablene ss of the sentence are well established. 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 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 Hines ’ I.C.R. 35 motion. A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, addressed to
the sound discret ion 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 an I.C.R. 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of n ew 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 an I.C.R. 35 motion, we consider the ent ire 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 review of the record, we conc lude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, Hines ’ judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order denying Hines ’ I.C.R. 35 motion, are affirmed.

2 Hines only appeals from the first denial of his I.C.R. 35 motion

.