See State v. Sanchez, 115 Idaho 776, 777-78, 769 P.2d 1148, 1149-50 (Ct.App. 1989) ; State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). If the original sentence was not excessive when imposed, the defendant must demonstrate that it is excessive in light of new or additional information presented with his motion to reduce. State v. Springer, 122 Idaho 544, 545, 835 P.2d 1355, 1356 (Ct.App. 1992); Hernandez, 121 Idaho at 117, 822 P.2d at 1014. If a defendant fails to make this showing, we cannot say that denial of the motion represents an abuse of discretion. Springer, 122 Idaho at 545, 835 P.2d at 1356.

A motion pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule 35 is essentially a request for leniency which may be granted in the discretion of the sentencing court. State v. Forde, 113 Idaho 21, 22, 740 P.2d 63, 64 (Ct.App. 1987). If the sentence is not excessive when imposed, the defendant must show on appeal that it is excessive in view of new or additional information presented with his motion to reduce the sentence. State v. Springer, 122 Idaho 544, 545, 835 P.2d 1355, 1356 (Ct.App. 1992); State v. Caldwell, 119 Idaho 281, 284, 805 P.2d 487, 490 (Ct.App. 1991). We review the trial court's decision for an abuse of discretion, applying the same criteria used for determining the reasonableness of the original sentence.

A motion pursuant to I.C.R. 35 is essentially a request for leniency which may be granted in the discretion of the sentencing court. State v. Forde, 113 Idaho 21, 22, 740 P.2d 63, 64 (Ct.App. 1987). If the sentence is not excessive when imposed, the defendant must show on appeal that it is excessive in view of new or additional information presented with his motion to reduce the sentence. State v. Springer, 122 Idaho 544, 545, 835 P.2d 1355, 1356 (Ct.App. 1992); State v. Caldwell, 119 Idaho 281, 284, 805 P.2d 487, 490 (Ct.App. 1991). We review the trial court's decision for an abuse of discretion, applying the same criteria used for determining the reasonableness of the original sentence.

A motion to reduce an otherwise lawful sentence is essentially a plea for leniency, and a decision on such a motion is committed to the sound discretion of the sentencing court. State v. Wersland, 125 Idaho 499, 504, 873 P.2d 144, 149 (1994); State v. Lavy, 121 Idaho 842, 845, 828 P.2d 871, 874 (1992); State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014 (Ct.App. 1991). If the original sentence was not excessive when imposed, the appellant must demonstrate that it is excessive in light of new or additional information presented with the motion to reduce the sentence. State v. Springer, 122 Idaho 544, 545, 835 P.2d 1355, 1356 (Ct.App. 1992). While the statement in the district court's written decision that no new information was presented at the hearing was inaccurate, this does not demonstrate that the district court failed to reach its denial of Hayes's motion through an exercise of reason.

A motion to reduce an otherwise lawful sentence is essentially a plea for leniency, and a decision on such a motion is committed to the sound discretion of the sentencing court. State v. Wersland, 125 Idaho 499, 504, 873 P.2d 144, 149 (1994); State v. Lavy, 121 Idaho 842, 845, 828 P.2d 871, 874 (1992); Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014 (Ct.App. 1991). If the original sentence was not excessive when imposed, the appellant must demonstrate that it is excessive in light of new or additional information presented with the motion to reduce. Id.; State v. Springer, 122 Idaho 544, 545, 835 P.2d 1355, 1356 (Ct.App. 1992). Brumfield presented no new information with his Rule 35 motion and only asked that his sentence be reduced to be consistent with that imposed on his co-defendant.

In cases such as this, where the original sentence was reasonable and not excessive, the defendant must show that the sentence is now excessive in light of new or additional information included with the Rule 35 motion. Cottrell, 132 Idaho at 187, 968 P.2d at 1096; State v. Springer, 122 Idaho 544, 545, 835 P.2d 1355, 1356 (Ct.App. 1992). If the defendant does not make such a showing, then we are unable to say that the denial of the Rule 35 motion was an abuse of discretion. Id.

State v. Brydon, 121 Idaho 890, 892, 828 P.2d 919, 921 (Ct.App. 1992); State v. Forde, 113 Idaho 21, 22, 740 P.2d 63, 64 (Ct.App. 1987). If the sentence is not excessive when imposed, the defendant must show that it is excessive in view of new or additional information presented with the motion to reduce the sentence. State v. Springer, 122 Idaho 544, 545, 835 P.2d 1355, 1356 (Ct.App. 1992); State v. Caldwell, 119 Idaho 281, 284, 805 P.2d 487, 490 (Ct.App. 1991). We review the trial court's decision applying the same factors used in determining whether the original sentence was unreasonable.

In the absence of such a showing, we cannot say that denial of the motion represents an abuse of discretion. State v. Springer, 122 Idaho 544, 545, 835 P.2d 1355, 1356 (Ct.App. 1992). As noted above, we have reviewed the record and found an abundance of evidence which supports the district court's imposition of a life sentence with thirty years fixed.

State v. Schorzman, 122 Idaho 201, 203, 832 P.2d 1136, 1138 (Ct.App. 1992). State v. Springer, 122 Idaho 544, 545, 835 P.2d 1355, 1356 (Ct.App. 1992). Williams bears the burden of showing that the trial court abused its sentencing discretion, in light of the primary sentencing objective of protecting society and the related goals of deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution.