IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 39615 STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 335 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: January 22, 2013 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) LYSA ROSE MILEY, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant.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. Darla S. Williamson, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two and one-half years, for each count of burglary and grand theft, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Mark W. Olson, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge PER CURIAM Lysa Rose Miley pled guilty to one count of burglary, Idaho Code § 18-1401 and one count of grand theft, Idaho Code §§ 18-2403(1), 18-2407(1)(b). The district court sentenced Miley to concurrent unified terms of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two and one-half years on each count. Miley filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Miley appeals, asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing excessive sentences and by denying her Idaho Criminal 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.

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 Miley’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, Miley’s judgment of conviction and sentences, and the district court’s order denying Miley’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.