1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37088

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

ALEXANDER THOMAS BROWN ,
Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 546

Filed: July 9, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Ronald J. Wilper , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified life sentence, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years , for rape , affirmed ; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

. Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon . Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before LANSING, Chief Judge, GRATTON, Judge

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Alexander Thoma s Brown appeals from his judgment of conviction and unified life
sentence, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years , for rape , Idaho Code § 18

- 6101(1). He also appeals the denial of his Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion f or reduction of the

sentence. We affirm. Where a sentence is within the statutory limits, it will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of the sentencing court’s discretion. State v. Hedger , 115 Idaho 598, 768 P.2d 1331
(1989). We will not conclude on review that the sentencing court abused its discretion unless the

sentence is unreasonable under the facts of the case. State v. Brown , 121 Idaho 385, 825 P.2d2

482 (1992). In evaluating the reasonableness of a sentence, we consider the nature of the offense
and the character of the offender, applying our well

- established standards of review. 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, 650 P.2d 707 (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).

A motion for reduction of a sentence un der 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, 159 P.3d 838 (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 447, 680 P.2d 869. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing Brown ’s sentence nor in denying Brown ’s Rule 35 motion for reduction
of sentence. The judgmen t of conviction and sentence, and the order denying Brown ’s Rule 35
motion, are affirmed.