1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No s . 43434 & 43435

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

JADE ROSE MOODY ,
Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 385

Filed: February 10, 2016
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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Melissa Moody , District Judge.
Judgment s of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year, for battery on a law enforcement officer and consecutive unified sentence of five yea rs, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for grand theft, affirmed ; orders denying I.C.R. 35 motions for reduction of sentences, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds , Deputy Appellate Public Defen der, 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 cases, Jade Rose Moody pled guilty to aggravated battery on a law
enforcement officer
, I.C. § § 18

- 915(3) and 18

- 903(a), and grand theft, I.C. §§ 18

- 2403(1), 18

- 2407(1)(b), and 18

- 2409. In exchange for her guilty plea s , additional charges were dismissed.
The district court sentenced Moody to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year, for battery on a law enforcement officer and a consecutive unified term2

of five years, with a mi nimum period of confinement of two years, for grand theft

. Moody filed
I.C.R 35 motion s for reduction of her sentences , which the district court denied. Moody appeals. Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of rev iew 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 , 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 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 district court erred in denying Moody ’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 d efendant 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 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, Moody ’s judgment s of conviction and sentence s , and the district court’s
order s denying Moody ’s Rule 35 motion s , are affirmed.