1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43992

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

CLINTON MARCUS CRANE ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 716

Filed: October 3, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, State of Idaho, Latah County. Hon. John R. Stegner , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for felony driving under the influence, affirmed ; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

.
Eric D. Fredericksen, Interim St ate Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deput y Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________
PER CURIAM

Clinton Marcus Crane pled guilty to felony driving under the influence . I.C. § § 18

- 8004

and 18

- 8005(9) . The district court sentenced Crane to a unified term of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years

. Crane filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district

court denied. Crane 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 Crane ’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.

Hu ffman , 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 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, Crane ’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the dist rict court’s order denying Crane ’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.