1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42075

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

JOSE EVERARDO RAYA ,
Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 336

Filed: February 10, 2015
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Hon. Dane H. Watkins, Jr. , District Judge.
Order revoking probation and executing unified seven

- year sentence with three

year determinate term for possession of a controlled substance, affirmed ; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion, affirmed ; Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy , Deputy Appellate Public Defende r, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and GUTIERREZ, Judge

PER CURIAM Jose Everardo Raya pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance, Idaho Code § 37

- 2732(c)(1) . The district court imposed a unified seven

- year sentence with a three

- year determinate term , suspended the sentence and placed Raya on probation for five years with the condition that he complete the Wood Court program. Subsequently, Raya admitted to violating the terms of the probation and was suspended from the Wood Court program. The district court consequently revoked probation
, ordered execution of the original sentence , and retained2 jurisdiction

. Upon completion of the retained jurisdiction period, the district court placed Raya back on probation. A report of probation violation was filed and the district court revoked probation and ordered Raya’s underlying sentence executed. Raya filed an Idaho Criminal
Rule 35 motion for reduction of his sentence, which the district court denied. Raya appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation
, ordering execution of his underlying sentence, and denying his Rule 35 motion. 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. Ada ms , 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 rehabilitatio n 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 be en 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 decision to revoke probation will be disturbed on appeal only upon a showing that the trial court abu sed 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

. Sentencing is also a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the factors to 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, 10 14

- 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).3 When reviewing the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire senten ce. 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. S tate 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 Cour t will consider the elements of the record before the trial court that are properly made part of the record on appeal and are relevant to the defendant’s contention that the trial court should have reduced the sentence upon revocation of probation. Morgan , 153 Idaho at 621, 288 P.3d at 838. A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency,
addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton , 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee , 11 5 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the
motion. Stat e v. Huffman , 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). In conducting our review of the grant or denial of a Rule 35 motion, we apply the same criteria used for determining the reasonableness of the original sentence. State v. Forde , 113 Idaho 21, 22 , 740 P.2d 63, 64 (Ct. App. 1987); Lopez , 106 Idaho at 449

- 51, 680 P.2d at 871

- 73. Upon review of the record, including any new information submitted with Raya ’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude
no abuse of discretion has been shown. Applying 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 and ordering
execution of Raya ’s sentence without modification or in denying Raya’s Rule 35 motion for
reduc tion of his sentence . Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Raya ’s previously suspended sentence and the order denying Raya’s Rule 35 motion are
affirmed.