1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40905

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

ROBERT CHARLES ELIZARRARAZ , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 315

Filed: January 8, 2014
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourt h Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Michael E. Wetherell , District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years , for violation of a no contact order
, affirmed ; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for re duction of sentence, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly E. Smith, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorel lo, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

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

PER CURIAM
Robert Charles Elizarraraz pled guilty to violation of a no contact order . Idaho Code § 18

- 920 . The d istrict court sentenced Elizarraraz to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years

. Elizarraraz filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Elizarraraz 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, 101 4

- 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 sentenc e. 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 deny ing Elizarraraz ’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 that 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 of a Rule 35 motion, we consider the entire record and apply the same c riteria 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, Elizarraraz ’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order denying Elizarraraz ’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.