1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44231

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

GARRETT RANDOLPH BOWSER ,
Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 503

Filed: June 27, 2017
Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. Lansing L. Haynes , District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for leaving the scene of an injury accident, affirmed ; Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; MELANSON, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Garrett Randolph Bowser was found guilty of leaving the scene of an injury accident
, Idaho Code § 18

- 8007 , and striking a fixture, I.C. § 49

- 1304. The district court imposed a
unified sentence of fi ve years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for leaving the scene of an injury accident and a concurrent 180

- day jail sentence for striking a fixture.
Bowser filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence , which the district
court denied. Bowser appeals, contend ing that his sentence for leaving the scene of an injury2 accident is excessive and that the district court abused its discretion in denying his Rule 35
motion

. 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 Bowser ’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 Idah o 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.
H

uffman , 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, Bowser ’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the di strict court’s order denying Bowser ’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.