               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                    Docket Nos. 44915/44916

STATE OF IDAHO,                                  )   2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 573
                                                 )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                     )   Filed: September 5, 2017
                                                 )
v.                                               )   Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
                                                 )
TASHA RENEA PARTRIDGE,                           )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
                                                 )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
       Defendant-Appellant.                      )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
                                                 )

       Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
       Kootenai County. Hon. John T. Mitchell, District Judge.

       Orders revoking probation, affirmed.

       Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster,
       Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM
       In consolidated cases, Tasha Renea Partridge pled guilty to possession of
methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1), and grand theft, I.C. §§ 18-2403(1), 18-
2407(1)(b)(1). The district court imposed concurrent, unified sentences of five years, with two
years determinate, suspended the sentences and placed Partridge on probation. Subsequently,
Partridge admitted to violating the terms of the probation, and the district court consequently
revoked probation, ordered execution of the original sentences, and retained jurisdiction.
Partridge appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation.




                                                 1
       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 I.C.R. 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. I.C. § 19-2601. 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.
       Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot
say that the district court abused its discretion either in revoking probation or in ordering
execution of Partridge’s sentences and retaining jurisdiction. Therefore, the orders revoking
probation and directing execution of Partridge’s previously suspended sentences are affirmed.




                                                2
