1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 36820

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

MICHAEL EDWARD HARKE , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2010 Unpublished O pinion No. 508

Filed: June 14, 2010
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, S tate of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Michael E. Wetherell , District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of three yea rs , for unlawful possession of a firearm
, affirmed ; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

. Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; J ason C. Pintler , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise
, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

______________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM
Michael Edward Harke entered an Alford 1 plea to unlawful possession of a firearm . I.C. § 18

- 3316

. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges and an allegation that he was a persistent violator were dismissed. The district court sentenced Harke to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years

. Harke filed an I.C.R 35 motion,
which the district court denied. Harke appea ls. 2

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

2 Harke also pled guilty to a mis demeanor charge of domestic battery. However, he does not challenge this judgment of conviction or sentence on appeal.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.
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 se ntence. 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 Harke ’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 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 mot ion. 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 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 been s hown. Therefore, Harke ’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order denying Harke ’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.