1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 39652/39653

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

WILLIAM HOWARD LOCKE , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 737

Filed: November 27, 2012
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS I S AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fou rth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Ronald J. Wilper , District Judge.
Order revoking probation and requiring execution of unified ten

- year sentence with two

- year determinate term for felony driving under the influence
, affirmed ; order revoking probation and requiring execution of concurrent ten

- year sentence with four

- year determinate term for felony driving under the influence, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Diane M. Walker, 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; LANSING, Judge; and GUTIERREZ, Judge

PER CURIAM This is a consolidated appeal. In Docket No. 39652, William Howard Locke pled guilty to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs (one felony conviction within fifteen years). Idaho Code §§ 18

- 8004, 18

- 8005(9) . The district court imposed a unified ten

- year sentence with a two year dete rminate term, suspended the sentence and placed Locke on supervised probation for ten years

. Approximately one year later, Locke again drove while intoxicated and the State charged him with felony DUI (docket number 39653). The State filed a motion for probation violation in
docket number 39652. Locke pled guilty to felony DUI in docket number 39653 and admitted to2 violating the conditions of his probation in docket number 39652. The district court revoked his probation and ordered e xecution of the underlying sentence in case number 39652 ; imposed a concurrent unified sentence of ten years with four years determinate in docket number 39653, and retained jurisdiction in both cases. Following the period of retained jurisdiction, the di strict court suspended Locke’s sentences and placed him on supervised probation in both cases. Subsequently, Locke admitted to violating several terms of t he probation, and the district court consequently revoked his probation and ordered execution of the original sentence s

. Locke appeals, contending that the district court abused its d iscretion in revoking probation or, alternatively, by failing to reduce his sentences

. 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 rehabili tation 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
h as 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.2 d 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 cour t 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
establ ished 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, 71 0 (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).3 When we review a sentence that is ordered into execution following a period of proba tion, 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 e vents 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 probati on or in ordering
execution of Locke ’s original sentence s without modification. Therefore, the order s revoking probation and directing execution of Locke ’s previously suspended sentence s are affirmed.