1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39692

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

JERRY LEWIS WILLIAMS, JR. ,
Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 696

Filed: October 31, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. John P. Lus ter , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent sentence s of a unified term of seven years, with three years determinate , for grand theft by unauthorized control and a unified term of four years, with one year determinate, for forgery

, affirmed ; or der denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, 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; LANSING, Judge; and GUTIERREZ, Judge

PER CURIAM Jerry Lewis Williams, Jr. pled guilty to grand theft by unauthorized control, Idaho Code
§ § 18

- 2403(3), 18

- 2407(1)(b), and forgery, Idaho Code § 18

- 3601 . The district court sentenced

Williams to concurrent sentences of a unifie d term of seven years, with three years determinate, for the grand theft and a unified term of four years, with one year determinate, for the forgery

. Williams filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Williams 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 defenda nt’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 Williams ’ Rule 35 motion. A

motion for re duction of sentence under Idaho Criminal Rule 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 (2 006); 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 sup port 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 I daho at 449

- 51, 680 P.2d at

871

- 73. Upon review of the record, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.
Therefore, Williams ’ judgment of convi ction and sentence s , and the district court’s order denying Williams ’ Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.