1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37200

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

FRED JULIAN McLEOD , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2010 Unpublished Opi nion No. 706

Filed: November 12, 2010
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Michael E. Wetherell , District Judge.
Order revoking probation and requiring execution of a unified ten

- year sentence with three and one

- half

- year determinat e term for indecent exposure
, affirmed

. Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Diane M. Walker, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Atto rney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before LANSING, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM
Fred Julian McLeod pled guilty to indecent exposure . Idaho Code § 18

- 4116 . The district court imposed a unified ten

- year sentence with five

- year determinate term, but after a period of retained jurisdiction, suspended the se ntence and placed McLeod on probation for nine

years . Subsequently, McLeod admitted to violating several terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of a reduced unified

sente nce of ten years with three and one

- half years determinate

. McLeod appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation and that the sentence is
excessive.2

It is within the trial court’s discretion to revok e 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. Up ton , 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). A decision to revoke probation will b e 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 i n 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 senten ce 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

. 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 McLeod ’s reduced sentence. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing
execution of McLeod ’s reduced s entence is affirmed.