               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                  Docket Nos. 39676 & 39677

STATE OF IDAHO,                                  )     2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 744
                                                 )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                     )     Filed: November 28, 2012
                                                 )
v.                                               )     Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
                                                 )
KENT EMMITT HALL,                                )     THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
                                                 )     OPINION AND SHALL NOT
       Defendant-Appellant.                      )     BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
                                                 )

       Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
       Bannock County. Hon. Stephen S. Dunn, District Judge.

       Judgments of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of twelve years, with
       minimum periods of confinement of five years, for possession of a controlled
       substance with intent to deliver and delivery of a controlled substance, affirmed;
       orders denying I.C.R. 35 motions for reduction of sentences, affirmed.

       Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ian H. Thomson, Deputy
       Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM
       Kent Emmitt Hall pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to
deliver and delivery of a controlled substance. I.C. § 37-2732(a)(1)(A). In exchange for his
guilty pleas, additional charges including an allegation that Hall was a persistent violator were
dismissed. The district court sentenced Hall to concurrent unified terms of twelve years, with
minimum periods of confinement of five years. Hall filed I.C.R 35 motions, which the district
court denied. Hall 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.

                                                1
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 Hall’s Rule 35 motions. 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, Hall’s judgments of conviction and sentences, and the district court’s orders
denying Hall’s Rule 35 motions, are affirmed.




                                                     2
