1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37173

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

TRACY MICHAEL TWISS , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2010 Unpublished Op inion No. 673

Filed: October 15, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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 modified unified ten

- year sentence , with four

- year de terminate term
, for felony driving under the influence
, affirmed

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

Ho n. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

______________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM Tracy Michael Twiss pled guilty to felony driving under the influence . I.C. § § 18

- 8004,
18

- 8005(5) . In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a unified ten

- year sentence wit h a five

- year determinate term, but after a period of retained jurisdiction, suspended the sentence and placed Twiss on probation. Subsequently,
Twiss admitted to violating several terms of the probation, and the dist rict court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of Twiss’s sentence. However, the district court reduced Twiss’s sentence to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years. Twiss filed an I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of his sentence, which the district2

court denied. Twiss appeals, 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 re voke 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. 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 execu ted 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 wil l be disturbed on appeal only upon 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 considere d in 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. Ap p. 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 sen tence 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 probation. Id. Applying the foregoing standard s, 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 Twiss ’s modified sentence. Therefore, the order revoking probation and direc ting
execution of Twiss ’s previously suspended sentence is affirmed.