1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 38945

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

ZACHARY ADAM CAIN , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 629

Filed: September 6, 2012
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS I S AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Se venth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Hon. Gregory S. Anderson , District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of six years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years , for burglary
, affirmed ; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affir med

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis , 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; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM Zachary Adam Cain pled guilty to burglary . I.C. § 18

- 1401

. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional cha rges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Cain to a unified term of six years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years

. Cain filed an I.C.R 35 motion,
which the district court denied. Cain 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 est ablished. 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 , 1032 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When re viewing 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 abu sed its discretion. Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Cain ’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 th at 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). In conducting our review of the grant
or denial o f 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 shown. Therefore, Cain ’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order denying Cain ’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.