1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42369

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.
CHARLES EDWARD BURCH, II ,
Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 592

Filed: August 13, 2015
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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Lynn G. Norton , District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentences of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, for felony driving under the influence and consecutive sentence s of 180 days in jail for driving without privileges and failure to provide proof of insurance, affirmed ; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appella te Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney G eneral, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

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

________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Charles Edward Burch, II, was found guilty of : felony driving under the influence (DUI)
, Idaho Code §§ 18

- 8004, 18

- 8005(6) (Count I) ; driving without privileges, I.C. § 18

- 8001(4) (Count II) ; failure to provide proof of insurance, I.C. § 49

- 1232 (Count III) ; and a persistent violator sentencing enhancement. The district court imposed a unified sentence of ten years with five years det erminate for the DUI charge and 180 days each for the remaining charges. The
sentences for Counts I and III are to run consecutive to the sentence for Count II

. Burch filed an2 I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Burch appeals , assertin g that the district court abused its discretion by imposing excessive sentences and by denying his Rule 35 motion for
reduction of sentence

. Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the
factors to be conside red 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 sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed t he record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion. Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Burch ’s Rule 35 motion. A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for lenienc y, 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 sente nce 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 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 re view of the record, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, Burch ’s judgment of conviction and sentence s , and the district court’s order denying Burch ’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.