1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39737

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

RANDALL ROOSEVELT McCULLON, JR. , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 369

Filed: February 15, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS I S AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fi fth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin Fallls County. Hon. G. Richard Bevan , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fourteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years , for forgery

, affirmed ; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, aff irmed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

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

PER CURIAM
Randall Roosevelt McCullon, Jr. pled guilty to forgery . I.C. § 18

- 3601

. In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed and the state agreed not to pursue additional charges, including an allegation that McCullon was a persistent violator. The district court

sentenced McCullon to a unified term of fourteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years

. McCullon filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. McCullon 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 and2 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). 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 McCullon’ 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, 7 71 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 I daho 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 shown. Therefore, McCullon’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’ s order denying McCullon’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.