1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 38388

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

STEAVEN MITCHELL VALLEY , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2011 Unpublished Opinion No. 695

Filed: November 10, 2011
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THIS I S AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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 rst Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. John P. Luster , District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of twelve years , for aggravated battery
, affirmed ; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sen tence, affirmed

. Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Jordan E. Taylor, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

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

PER CURIAM Steaven Mitchell Valley pled guilty to aggravated battery . I.C. § § 18

- 903, 18

- 907

. In exchange for his gui lty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court sentenced Valley to a unified term of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of twelve years

. Valley filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Valley 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. 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 , 1032 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 Valley ’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, Valley ’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order denying Valley ’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.