1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37143

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

RONALD JOSEPH HAWLEY , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2010 Unpublished O pinion No. 475

Filed: May 20, 2010

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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, St ate of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Timothy Hansen , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years , for felony driving under the influence

, affirmed ; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

. Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

______________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM Ronald Joseph Hawley pled guilty to felony driving under the influence . I.C. §§ 18

- 8004, 18

- 8005(7) . In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges including an allegation that Hawley was a persistent violato r, were dismissed. The district court sentenced Hawley to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years

. Hawley filed an
I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Hawley 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 established.
See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 1 17

- 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 d efendant’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 dis trict court erred in denying Hawley ’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 criteria use d 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, Hawley ’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order denying Hawley ’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.