1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45709

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

CORY GENE DAVIS ,
Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Filed: August 16, 2018
Karel A. Lehrman, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Peter G. Barton , District Judge.
Order revoking probation and executing underlying sentence
, affirmed

. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Erik R. Lehtinen , Chief, Appellate Unit, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

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

________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Cory Gene Davis pled guilty to felony driving while under the influence of alcohol

. Idaho Code § § 18

- 8004, 18

- 8005(6) . The district court sentenced Davis to a unified term of seven years with two years determ inate and retained jurisdiction

. Following the period of retained jurisdiction
, the district court suspended the sentence and placed Davis on probation for a period of six years . Subsequently, Davis admitted to violating several terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original

sentence

. Davis appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation and executing the original sen tence

.2 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 achieving the goal of rehabilitation an d 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 e stablished, 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, 977, 783 P.2d 315, 316 (Ct. App. 1 989). 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 Idaho 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 ex amine 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. Thus, this Court will consider the elements of the record before the trial court that are properly made part of the record on appeal. Morgan , 153 Idaho at 621, 288 P.3d at 838. Apply ing the foregoing standards, 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 Davis ’s sentence without modification. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Davis ’s previously suspended sentence is affirmed.