1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37108

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

STEVEN J. DRAHOS , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2010 Unpublished Opini on No. 516

Filed: June 18, 2010
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin Falls County. Hon. Randy J. Stoker , District Judge.
Order revoking probation and reinstating previously suspended unified five

- year sentence , with two

- year determ inate term
, for aggravated assault
, affirmed

. Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wa sden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

______________________________________________ Before LANSING, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM
Steven J. Drahos pled guilty to aggravated assault , I.C. § 18

- 905 , and the district court imposed a unified five

- year sentence , with a two

- year determinate term. Following a period of retained jurisdiction, the district court suspende d the sentence and placed Drahos on probation. This probation was subsequently revoked and the suspended sentence ordered into execution. Drahos filed an I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of his sentence, which was denied. Drahos appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation, that the sentence is excessive, and that the district court should have sua sponte reduced the sentence. It is within the trial court’s discretion to revoke probatio n if any of the terms and conditions of the probation have been violated. I.C. §§ 19

- 2603, 20

- 222; State v. Beckett , 1222

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. H ass , 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 I daho 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 th e 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 will be disturbe d 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 considered in evaluati ng 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. App. 1984); Sta te 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 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 imposed as well as events occurring between the original sentencing and the revocation of probation. Id. Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we ca nnot say that the district court abused its discretion either in revoking probation or in ordering execution of Drahos’s original sentence without modification. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Drahos’s previously suspend ed sentence is affirmed.