               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                      Docket No. 42355

STATE OF IDAHO,                               )   2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 489
                                              )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                  )   Filed: May 14, 2015
                                              )
v.                                            )   Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
                                              )
TONY DARRELL CALLAN,                          )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
                                              )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
       Defendant-Appellant.                   )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
                                              )

       Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,
       Bonneville County. Hon. Jon J. Shindurling, District Judge.

       Order denying Idaho        Criminal   Rule    35   motion    for   reduction   of
       sentence, affirmed.

       Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Maya P. Waldron, Deputy
       Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM
       Tony Darrell Callan pled guilty to grand theft, Idaho Code § 18-2403. The district court
imposed a unified sentence of fourteen years with a minimum period of confinement of three
years. Callan filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Callan
appeals.
       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

                                              1
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). An appeal from the
denial of a Rule 35 motion cannot be used as a vehicle to review the underlying sentence absent
the presentation of new information. Id. Because no new or additional information in support of
Callan’s Rule 35 motion was presented, the district court did not abuse its discretion. For the
foregoing reasons, the district court’s order denying Callan’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.




                                                2
