1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39148

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

RODOLFO DOMINGUEZ ,
Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 485 A

Filed: August 10, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

AMENDED OPINION THE COURT’S PRIOR OPINION DATED MAY 23, 2012 IS HEREBY AMENDED

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judic ial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Darla S. Williamson , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years , for domestic violence i n the presence of a child

, affirmed ; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. C urtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

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

PER CURIAM Rodolfo Dominguez entered an Alford 1 plea to domestic violence in the presence of a

child . Idaho Code § § 18

- 903(a), 18

- 91 8 (2), 2 18

- 918(4) . The district court sentenced Dominguez

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

2 Incorrectly cited in the district court’s judgment as 18

- 912(2).2 to a unified term of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years

. Dominguez filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Dominguez 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, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1 991); 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. Oli ver , 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 Do minguez ’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 I daho 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 prov ided 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 d etermining 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.

There fore, Dominguez ’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order denying Dominguez ’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.