1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42235

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

CORY BRAND HINCKS , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 344

Filed: February 11, 2015
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS I S AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fou rth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Jason D. Scott , District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two and one

- half years , for felony driving under the influence
, affirmed ; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellat e Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appell ant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM Cory Brand Hincks pled guilty to felony driving under the influence . Idaho Code § § 18

- 8004, 18

- 8005(6) . The district court sentenced Hincks to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two and one

- half years to run concurrently with a prior sentence for which he was on parole

. Hincks filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the
district court denied. Hincks appeals asserting that the di strict court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence and by denying his Rule 35 motion

. 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, 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, 7 10 (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 Hincks ’ 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
motio n, 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 re view 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 Idah o at 449

- 51, 680 P.2d at 871

- 73. Upon review of the record, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, Hincks ’ judgment of conviction and sentence, and the d istrict court’s order denying Hincks ’ Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.