1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37505/37507

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

TONY RICHARD JONES , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2011 Unpublish ed Opinion No. 312

Filed: January 10, 2011
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial Distr ict, State of Idaho, Bannock County. Hon. Robert C. Naftz , District Judge.
Order revoking probation and requiring execution of unified four

- year sentence with two

- year determina te term for fraudulent use of a financial transaction card
, and concurrent unified four

- year sentence with two

- year determinate term for forgery, affirmed

. Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Erik R. Lehtinen, Depu ty Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Russell J. Spencer, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before LANSING, Judge, GUTIERREZ, Judge and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM
Thes e appeals are consolidated. In Docket No. 37505 Tony Richard Jones was convicted
of fraudulent use of a financial transaction card
, I.C. § 18

- 3124(1), and in Docket No. 37507, Jones was convicted of forgery, I.C. § 18

- 3601

. Th e district court withheld judgment in both cases, placed Jones on probation and admitted him to mental health court. Following several violations, Jones’s probation was revoked and t he district court imposed concurrent unified four

year sent ence s with two

- year determinate term s , but after a period of retained jurisdiction, suspended the sentence s and placed Jones on probation. Jones again admitted to violating several terms of the probation , and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered2 execution of the original sentence s

. Jones 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 revoke probation a court must examine whether the probation is (1) achieving the goal of rehabilitation and (2) consistent with the protection of soci ety. 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 sen tence 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). A
decision 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. Sentencing is also a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review
and the factors t o be considered 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. 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).
When w e 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 these standards, and having reviewed the re cord in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its
discretion. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Jones ’s previously suspended sentence s is affirmed.