1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 43020/43021

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

KEITH ANTON SARBACHER ,
Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 370

Filed: February 3, 2016
Stephen W. Kenyon, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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.
Judgments revoking probation, affirmed

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

________________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________ PER CURIAM In each of these cases consolidated on appeal, Keith Anton Sarbacher pled guilty to one count of grand theft , Idaho Code § § 18

- 2403(1), 18

- 2407(1)(b) , and was accepted into Drug
Court

. Following a report of vi olation, the district court disch arged Sarbacher from Drug Court
and imposed concurrent unified sentences of ten years, with four years determinate . After a period of retained jurisdiction, the district court suspended the sentence s and placed Sarbacher on probation. Subsequently, Sarbacher admitted to violating the terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence
, retaining jurisdiction a second time

. Upon completion of the second period of retained jurisdiction, the district court suspended Sarbacher’s sentences and returned him to probation.2

Sarbacher again violated his probation
, and the district court revoked probation and ordered execution of the underlying sentence s. Sarbacher appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation. 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 revo ke 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 32 7; 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). The court may also order a period of retained jurisdiction. State v. Urrabazo , 150 Idaho 158, 162, 244 P.3d 1244, 1248 (2010). A decisio n 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. In reviewing the propriety of a probation revocation, the focus of the inquiry is the
conduct un derlying 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 issu es 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 the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation

. Therefore, the judgments
revoki ng probation and directing execution of Sarbacher ’s previously suspended sentence s are affirmed.