1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 39676 & 39677

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

KENT EMMITT HALL , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 744

Filed: November 28, 2012
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS I S AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Si xth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bannock County. Hon. Stephen S. Dunn , District Judge.
Judgments of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of twelve years, with minimum periods of confinement of five years , for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and delivery of a controlled substance
, affirmed ; orders denying I.C.R. 35 motions for reduction of sentences, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ian H. Thomson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

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

PER CURIAM
Kent Emmitt Hall pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and delivery of a controlled substance

. I.C. § 37

- 2732(a)(1)(A). In exchange for his

g uilty pleas, additional charges including an allegation that Hall was a persistent violator were
dismissed. The district court sentenced Hall to concurrent unified ter ms of twelve years, with minimum periods of confinement of five years. Hall filed I.C.R 35 motions, which the district
court denied. Hall 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.2 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 Hall ’s Rule 35 motions. A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, addresse d 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. Huffman , 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 84 0 (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, Hall ’s judgments of co nviction and sentences, and the district court’s orders denying Hall ’s Rule 35 motions, are affirmed.