               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                       Docket No. 39239

STATE OF IDAHO,                                  )     2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 514
                                                 )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                     )     Filed: June 15, 2012
                                                 )
v.                                               )     Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
                                                 )
JERRY BYARD CONRAD,                              )     THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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,
       Bingham County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson, District Judge.

       Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
       of confinement of three years, for felony driving under the influence of alcohol
       with enhancement, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of
       sentence, affirmed.

       Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, 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
       Jerry Byard Conrad pled guilty to felony driving under the influence of alcohol with an
enhancement for having one prior felony within fifteen years. Idaho Code §§ 18-8004(1)(a), 18-
8005(9). The district court sentenced Conrad to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum
period of confinement of three years. Conrad filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the
district court denied. Conrad appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by
imposing an excessive sentence and by denying his Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence.
       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 Conrad’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, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.
        Therefore, Conrad’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order
denying Conrad’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.




                                                     2
