1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 38670

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

BERNARDO GARCIA PENALOZA ,
Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 698

Filed: October 31, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Renae J. Hoff , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seventeen years, with seven years determinate , for conspiracy to traffic in methamphetamine

, affirmed ; order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fl eming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

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

PER CURIAM

Bernardo Garcia Penaloza pled guilty to conspiracy to traffic in methamphetamine

. Idaho Code § 37

- 2732 B(a)(4), (b)

. The district court sentenced Penaloza to a unified term of seventeen years, with seven years determinate

. Penaloza filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35

motio n, which the district court denied. Penaloza 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, 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 , 1032 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 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 abused its discretion.

N ext, we review whether the district court erred in denying Penaloza’s Rule 35 motion. A motion for reduction of sentence under Idaho Criminal Rule 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton , 1 43 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 used f or determining the reasonableness of the original sentence. State v. Forde

, 113 Idaho 21, 22, 740 P.2d 63, 64 (Ct. App. 1987); Lopez , 106 I daho at 449

- 51, 680 P.2d at

871

- 73. Upon review of the record, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.

T herefore, Penaloza’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order denying Penaloza’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.