1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 46163/46 1 64/46165

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

BRENDA KC AUTREY ,
Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Filed: May 31, 2019
Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. Lansing L. Haynes , District Judge.
Judgment s of conviction; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence; and order revoking probation and execution of sentence, affirmed

. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford
, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Brenda KC Autrey pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance (Docket No. 46163) . I.C. § 37

- 2732(c) . The district cou rt sentenced Autrey to a unified term of five years with three years determinate. The district court also revoked her probation in two other cases and imposed her underlying concurrent sentences of five years with two years determinate (Docket Nos. 46164 and 46165) . Autrey filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentences, which the district court denied (Docket No. 46163)

. Autrey appeals, contending that
the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excess ive sentence, revoking probation
, and denying the Rule 35 motion

.2 Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established a nd 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). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that th e district court abused its discretion. 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 achiev ing 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 I.C.R. 35 to reduce the sentence. Beckett , 122 Idaho at 325, 834 P.2d at 327; State v. Marks , 116 Idaho 976, 9 77, 783 P.2d 315, 316 (Ct. App. 1989). The court may also order a period of retained jurisdiction. I.C. § 19

- 2601. A decision to revoke probation will be disturbed on appeal only upon a showing that the trial court abused its discretion. Beckett , 122
I daho at 325, 834 P.2d at 327. In 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

. 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 imp osed as well as events occurring between the original sentencing and the revocation of probation. Id. Thus, this Court will3 consider the elements of the record before the trial court that are properly made part of the record on appeal and are relevant to the defendant’s contention that the trial court should have reduced the sentence sua sponte upon revocation of probation. Morgan , 153 Idaho at 621, 288 P.3d at
838. A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency,
addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton , 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee , 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the
motion. State v. Huffman , 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the record, including any new information submitt ed with Autrey ’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no
abuse of discretion has been shown. Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive senten ce (Docket No. 46163), by revoking probation (Docket Nos. 46164 and 46165), or in denying Autrey ’s Rule 35 motion (Docket No. 46163). Therefore, Autrey’s judgment s of conviction and sentences , order denying Rule 35 motion, and the order s revoking probation and directing execution of Autrey ’s previously suspended sentence s , are affirmed.