1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40271

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

DANIELLE LENAE KING , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 491

Filed: May 14, 2013
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN U NPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Valley County. Hon. Thomas F. Neville , District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fourteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years , for possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver
, affirmed ; ord er denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben Patrick McGreevy, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden , Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

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

PER CURIAM Danielle Lenae King pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance with the intent to
deliver . Idaho Code § 37

- 2732(a)(1)(A) . The district court sentenced King to a unified term of fourteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years

. King filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. King appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence and by denying her I.C.R. 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, 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 King ’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 defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of new or additional information subsequently provided to the district cou rt 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 reasonabl eness 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, King ’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order denying King ’s Rule 35 motion, are affir med.