1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41457

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

ROBERT COREY CROFT , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 589

Filed: June 25, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Patrick H. Owen , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years , for sexual battery of a minor child sixteen or seventeen years of age

, affirmed ; order d enying 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, Attorn ey General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

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

PER CURIAM Robert Corey Croft pled guilty to sexual battery of a minor child sixteen or seventee n years of age . I.C. § 18

- 1508A(1)(a) . In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were

dismissed. The district court sentenced Croft to a unified term of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years

. Croft filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court

denied. Croft 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 est ablished.
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 re viewing 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 abu sed its discretion. Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Croft ’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, 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 th at 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, 840 (2007). In conducting our review of the grant

or denial o f 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, Croft ’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order denying Croft ’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.