1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37381

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

CHRISTOPHER LYNN WILLIAMS , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2010 Unpublis hed Opinion No. 654

Filed: October 5, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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 Dist rict, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Michael R. McLaughlin , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of six years, with a minimum period of confinement of tw o years , for aiding and abetting burglary

, affirmed ; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

. Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Heather M. Carlson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Bo ise, for appellant.

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

______________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM Christopher Lynn Williams pled guilty to aiding and abetting burglary . I.C. §§ 18

- 14014,

18

- 204 . In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court

sentenced Williams to a unified term of six years, with a minimum period of confinement of two

years

. Williams filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Williams 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.
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 , 1032

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, 1 70 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 Williams ’s Rule 35 motio n. 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. 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, Williams ’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order denying Williams ’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.