1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43373

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

SHANE N. BRANS ,
Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 456

Filed: March 30, 2016
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. George A. Southworth , District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and aggregate unified sentences of twenty years, with minimum periods of confinement of eight years, for three counts of injury to children, affirmed ; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentences, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, St ate Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Shane N. Brans pled guilty to two counts of injury to children and entered an Alford 1 plea to an amended count of injury to children. I.C. § 18

- 15 01(1) . The district court sentenced Brans

to concurrent unified terms of ten years, with minimum periods of confinement of two years for the first two counts and a consecutive unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of

1 See North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25 (1970).2

confinement of six year s, for the third count. Thus, Br a ns ’ aggregate sentences total twenty years, with minimum periods of confinement of eight years

. Br a ns filed an I.C.R 35 motion,
which the district court denied. Brans 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 , 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 Brans ’ 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 motion. State v. Huf fman , 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 shown. Therefore, Brans ’ judgment of conviction and sentence s , and the distr ict court’s order denying Brans ’ Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.