               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                       Docket No. 41884

STATE OF IDAHO,                                  )      2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 793
                                                 )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                     )      Filed: October 31, 2014
                                                 )
v.                                               )      Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
                                                 )
DAVID ANTHONY JACOBO,                            )      THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
                                                 )      OPINION AND SHALL NOT
       Defendant-Appellant.                      )      BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
                                                 )

       Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Cassia
       County. Hon. Michael R. Crabtree, District Judge.

       Order revoking probation and requiring execution of modified, unified four-year
       sentence, with one-year determinate term, for possession of a controlled substance
       with the intent to deliver, affirmed; order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed.

       Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy
       Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

       Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; John C. McKinney, Deputy
       Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
                 ________________________________________________

                     Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;
                                 and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM
       David Anthony Jacobo pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance with the intent
to deliver. I.C. § 37-2732(a)(1)(B). The district court withheld judgment and placed Jacobo on
probation for three years. Several months later, Jacobo admitted to violating the terms of his
probation. The district court revoked Jacobo’s withheld judgment and probation and imposed a
unified four-year sentence, with a two-year determinate term, but retained jurisdiction. After
Jacobo completed evaluation at NICI, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. However, the
district court modified Jacobo’s sentence to a unified term of four years, with a minimum period
of confinement of one year. Jacobo filed an I.C.R. 35 motion for further reduction of his



                                                1
sentence, which the district court denied. Jacobo appeals, contending that the district court
abused its discretion in revoking his probation and the district court erred in relinquishing
jurisdiction.
        It is within the trial court’s discretion to revoke probation if any of the terms and
conditions of the probation have been violated. I.C. §§ 19-2603, 20-222; State v. Beckett, 122
Idaho 324, 325, 834 P.2d 326, 327 (Ct. App. 1992); State v. Adams, 115 Idaho 1053, 1054, 772
P.2d 260, 261 (Ct. App. 1989); State v. Hass, 114 Idaho 554, 558, 758 P.2d 713, 717 (Ct. App.
1988). In determining whether to revoke probation a court must examine whether the probation
is achieving the goal of rehabilitation and consistent with the protection of society. State v.
Upton, 127 Idaho 274, 275, 899 P.2d 984, 985 (Ct. App. 1995); Beckett, 122 Idaho at 325, 834
P.2d at 327; Hass, 114 Idaho at 558, 758 P.2d at 717. The court may, after a probation violation
has been established, order that the suspended sentence be executed or, in the alternative, the
court is authorized under Idaho Criminal Rule 35 to reduce the sentence. Beckett, 122 Idaho at
325, 834 P.2d at 327; State v. Marks, 116 Idaho 976, 977, 783 P.2d 315, 316 (Ct. App. 1989).
The court may also order a period of retained jurisdiction. State v. Urrabazo, 150 Idaho 158,
162, 244 P.3d 1244, 1248 (2010). A decision to revoke probation will be disturbed on appeal
only upon a showing that the trial court abused its discretion. Beckett, 122 Idaho at 325, 834
P.2d at 327. In reviewing the propriety of a probation revocation, the focus of the inquiry is the
conduct underlying the trial court’s decision to revoke probation. State v. Morgan, 153 Idaho
618, 621, 288 P.3d 835, 838 (Ct. App. 2012). Thus, this Court will consider the elements of the
record before the trial court relevant to the revocation of probation issues which are properly
made part of the record on appeal. Id.
        Sentencing is also a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review
and the factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of a sentence are well
established and need not be repeated here. 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).
        When we review a sentence that is ordered into execution following a period of
probation, we will examine the entire record encompassing events before and after the original


                                                2
judgment. State v. Hanington, 148 Idaho 26, 29, 218 P.3d 5, 8 (Ct. App. 2009). We base our
review upon the facts existing when the sentence was imposed as well as events occurring
between the original sentencing and the revocation of probation. Id. Applying the foregoing
standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court
abused its discretion in revoking probation.
       Jacobo also asserts the district court erred in relinquishing jurisdiction. We note that the
decision to place a defendant on probation or whether, instead, to relinquish jurisdiction over the
defendant is a matter within the sound discretion of the district court and will not be overturned
on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Hood, 102 Idaho 711, 712, 639 P.2d 9, 10
(1981); State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 205-06, 786 P.2d 594, 596-97 (Ct. App. 1990). As noted
above, however, the district court found that probation was not an appropriate course of action in
Jacobo’s case.
       We hold that Jacobo has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion.
Therefore, the order revoking probation and the order relinquishing jurisdiction are affirmed.




                                                3
