1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40899

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

ROBERT DEAN DILUZIO , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 773

Filed: December 5, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Firs t Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. Fred M. Gibler , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years , for possession of a controlled substance

, affirmed ; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for redu ction of sentence, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before LANSING, Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Robert Dean Diluzio entered an Alford 1 plea to possession of a controlled substance . I.C.
§ 37

- 2732(c)(1)(F) . The district court sentenced Diluzio to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years

. Diluzio filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the

district court denied. Diluzio 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.

1 See North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25 (1970).2 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 , 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 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 Diluzio ’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, Diluzio ’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order denying Diluzio ’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.