               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                       Docket No. 38696

STATE OF IDAHO,                                  )     2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 381
                                                 )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                     )     Filed: March 1, 2012
                                                 )
v.                                               )     Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
                                                 )
PAUL DANIEL SMITH,                               )     THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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, Twin
       Falls County. Hon. G. Richard Bevan, District Judge.

       Order revoking probation and requiring execution of unified ten-year sentence
       with five-year determinate term for robbery, affirmed.

       Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Spencer J. Hahn, Deputy
       Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

       Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy
       Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
                 ________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
       Paul Daniel Smith pled guilty to robbery. Idaho Code § 18-6501. The district court
imposed a unified ten-year sentence with a five-year determinate term. However, the district
court granted, in part, Smith’s Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion and placed Smith in the retained
jurisdiction program. After the period of retained jurisdiction, the district court suspended the
sentence and placed Smith on probation for five years. Smith appealed, asserting that the district
court should have further reduced his sentence following the period of retained jurisdiction and
this Court affirmed the district court in an unpublished decision. Smith subsequently violated the
terms of his probation and the district court revoked probation, retained jurisdiction a second
time, and again placed Smith on probation. Thereafter, Smith again was found to have violated


                                                1
several terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered
execution of the original sentence. Smith appeals, contending that the district court abused its
discretion in revoking probation and that the sentence is excessive.
       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.
       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
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 the probation. Id.




                                                 2
       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 Smith’s original sentence without modification. Therefore, the order revoking
probation and directing execution of Smith’s previously suspended sentence is affirmed.




                                               3
