1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 36640

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

CARLOS ALBERTO ROCHA , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2010 Unpublished O pinion No. 506

Filed: June 10, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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, St ate of Idaho, Minidoka County. Hon. R. Barry Wood , District Judge.
Order revoking probation and requiring execution of unified twelve

- year sentence with eight

- year determinate t erm for robbery , without modification
, affirmed

. Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Mark J. Ackley , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasd en, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before LANSING, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM At the age of sixteen, Carlos Albert o Rocha admitted to robbery and was released on house arrest, during which time he fled the state. After a period of four years, Rocha returned to Idaho and shortly thereafter was rearrested and charged as an adult with burglary, robbery,

escape , and a f

irearm enhancement. Rocha pled guilty to robbery , Idaho Code § 18

- 6501
, and
th e remaining charges were dismissed

. The district court imposed a unified twelve

- year sentence with a n eight

- year determinate term, but after a period of retained jurisdiction, suspended the sentence and placed Rocha on probation for a period of four years . Subsequently, Rocha admitted to violating several terms of the probation, and the district court consequentl y revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence. Rocha appeals contending that the2

district court abused its discretion in revoking probation and failing to modify an excessive

sentence

. It is within the trial court’s discretion to revo ke 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 and consistent with the protection of society. State v.
U pton , 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 sentence be execute d or, in the 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 disturbed 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 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 we review a sente nce 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 the probation. Id

. We review only the order rev oking probation. 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 or in ordering execution of Rocha ’s original sentence without3

modifica tion. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Rocha ’s previously suspended sentence , without modification, is affirmed.