1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40768

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

RAFAEL CISNEROS , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 802

Filed: December 23, 2013
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS I S AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Th ird Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Juneal C. Kerrick , District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years , for felony driving under the influence
, affirmed ; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for re duction of sentence, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before LANSING, Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM
Rafael Cisneros pled guilty to felony driving under the influence . I.C. §§ 18

- 8004 and
18

- 8005 . In ex change for his guilty plea, additional charges and an allegation that Cisneros was a persistent violator were dismissed. The district court sentenced Cisneros to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years , to run concurrent with an
unrelated sentence. Cisneros filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Cisneros 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.2 See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 101 4

- 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 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 Cisneros ’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 s ubsequently 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 cri teria 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 b een shown. Therefore, Cisneros ’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order denying Cisneros ’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.