1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37271

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

JOSEPH PAUL STORER , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2010 Unpublished Opi nion No. 724

Filed: December 2, 2010
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Hon. Gregory S. Anderson , District Judge.
Order revoking probation and requiring execution of unified six

- year sentence with one

- year determi nate term for felony injury to a child
, affirmed

. Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. W asden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

______________________________________________ Before LANSING, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM Joseph Paul Storer was charged wit h sexual battery of a child sixteen or seventeen years of age. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Storer pled guilty to felony injury to a child . I.C. § 18

- 1501(1) . The district court imposed a unified six

- year se ntence with a one

- year determinate
term, but suspended the sentence and placed Storer on probation. Thereafter, Storer admitted to violating the terms of his probation, and the district court revoked probation, but after a perio d of retained jurisdiction, suspended the sentence and again placed Storer on probation. Subsequently, Storer admitted to violating the terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered exec ution of the original sentence. Storer appeals,2

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 te rms 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 326, 834 P.2d at 328; State v. Marks , 116 Idaho 976, 977, 783 P.2d 315, 316 (Ct. App. 1989). A decision to revoke probation will be disturbed on appeal only u pon a showing that the trial court
abused its discretion. Beckett , 122 Idaho at 326, 834 P.2d at 328. 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 reasonablen ess 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 exec ution 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 probation. Id. Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its di scretion either in revoking probation or in ordering
execution of Storer ’s original sentence without modification. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Storer ’s previously suspended sentence is aff irmed.