1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42751

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

SHEILA DAWN BEE ,
Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 662

Filed: October 20, 2015
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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Jon J. Shindurling , District Judge.
Order revoking probation, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly E. Smith , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________ PER CURIAM
Sheila Dawn Bee pled guilty to burglary , Idaho Code § 18

- 1401 . The district court withheld judgment and placed Bee on probation for four years. Subsequently, Bee violated her probation and the district court withdrew the withheld judgment, imposed a unified sentence of five years, with a minimum term of confinement of two years, and continued Bee on probation. Following two additional violations, the district court imposed the original sentence, but after a

p eriod of retained jurisdiction , suspended the sentence and placed Bee on probation. Bee admitted to violating the terms of the probation two more times , and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence. Bee appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation

.2

It is within the trial court’s discretion to revoke prob ation 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 , 1 27 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, i n 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 retain ed 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. I n 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 t he district court abused its discretion either in revoking probation or in ordering
execution of Bee ’s sentence without modification. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Bee ’s previously suspended sentence is affirmed.