1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42838

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

RODNEY GEIGER ,
Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 700

Filed: November 10, 2015
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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Benjamin R. Simpson , District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and suspended unified sentence of six years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for delivery of a controlled substance, affirmed ; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, 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 MELANSON, Chi ef Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Rodney Geiger pled guilty to delivery of a controlled substance . I.C. § 37

- 2732(a)(1)(A)

. The district court sentenced Geiger to a unified term of six years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years

. The district court suspended the sentence and placed Geiger on probation. Geiger filed an I.C.R 35 motion seeking a reductio n in the fine imposed , which the
district court denied. Geiger appeals.2

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 esta blished. 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 rev iewing 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 abus ed its discretion. Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Geiger ’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. Knig hton , 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 subseq uently provided 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 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 s hown. Therefore, Geiger ’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order denying Geiger ’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.