               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                        Docket No. 45379

STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )   2018 Unpublished Opinion No. 370
                                                )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )   Filed: February 26, 2018
                                                )
v.                                              )   Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
                                                )
TERRY RAY DALTON,                               )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
                                                )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
       Defendant-Appellant.                     )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
                                                )

       Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
       County. Hon. Steven Hippler, District Judge.

       Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of three years, with a minimum
       period of confinement of one and one-half years, for battery against a health care
       worker, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of
       sentence, affirmed.

       Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth Ann Allred,
       Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

                     Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
                                  and LORELLO, Judge
                   ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
       Terry Ray Dalton pled guilty to battery against a health care worker. Idaho Code §§ 18-
915C, 18-903. The district court sentenced Dalton to a unified term of three years with one and
one-half years determinate. Dalton filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district
court denied. Dalton appeals asserting that the district 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.

                                                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 Dalton’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 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, including any new information submitted with Dalton’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude
no abuse of discretion has been shown.
        Therefore, Dalton’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order
denying Dalton’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.




                                                     2
