1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42804

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

J ONATHA N DANIEL ROJAS ,
Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 675

Filed: October 28, 2015
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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Juneal C. Kerrick , District Judge.
Judgment of conviction an d concurrent unified sentences of five years, with minimum terms of confinement of two years, for felony domestic battery and felony violation of a no contact order, affirmed ; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentences, affirmed

.
Sara B. Tho mas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________ PER CURIAM
Jonath a n Daniel Rojas entered an Alford 1 plea to felony domestic battery , Idaho
Code § § 18

- 903(a), (b), and 18

- 918(3)(c); and felony violation of a no contact order, I.C. § 18

- 920

. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed concurrent unified sentences of five years, with minimum terms of confinement of two

1 See North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25 (1970).2 years

. Rojas filed an Idaho Crimina l Rule 35 motion for reduction of his sentences, which the
district court denied. Rojas 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 t he 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 tha t the district court abused its discretion. Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Rojas ’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 t he 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 addit ional 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, Rojas ’s judgment of conviction and sentences, and the district court’s order denying Rojas ’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.