1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 38767

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

PATRICK O’NEIL , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 447

Filed: April 17, 2012
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bannock County. Hon. Robert C. Naftz , District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years , for grand theft by possession of stolen property , affirmed ; order denying I.C.R. 35 mot ion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

. Nevin, Benjamin, McKay & Bartlett LLP; Jeffrey Brownson, 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
Patrick O’Neil pled guilty to grand theft by possession of stolen property . Idaho Code §§ 18

- 2403(4), 18

- 2407(1) . The district court sentenced O’Neil to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of conf inement of three years

. O’Neil filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court de nied. O’Neil appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence and by 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, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State2 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 O’Neil ’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, 1 44 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 dist rict 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 r easonableness 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, O’Neil ’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order denying O’Neil ’s Rule 35 motio n, are affirmed.