1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 43310/43359

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

BRADLEY COLE HOLCOMB ,
Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 423

Filed: March 9, 2016
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin Falls County. Hon. Randy J. Stoker , District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of life, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years each , for three count s of robbery, and seven years with two years determinate for possession of a controlled substance
, affirmed ; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swi nford , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________ PER CURIAM In these consolidated appeals, Bradley Cole Holcomb pled guilty to two counts of robbery (Docket No. 43310), Idaho Code § § 18

- 6501, 18

- 6503, 18

- 112A ; one count of robbery and one count of possession of a controlled substance (Doc ket No. 43359), Idaho Code §§ 18

- 6501, 18

- 6503, 18

- 112A, 37

- 2732(c)(1). The district court sentenced Holcomb to concurrent unified sentences of life with ten years determina te for each count of robbery, and seven years with two years determinate for possession of a controlled substance

. Holcomb filed an I.C.R

. 352

motion, which the district court denied. Holcomb appeals asserting that the district court abused
its disc retion 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 est ablished. 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 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 Holcomb ’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. Kn ighton , 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 subs equently 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 criter ia 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, Holcomb ’s judgment of conviction and sentence s , and the district court’s order denying Holcomb ’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.