1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45848

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

NATHAN DEAN CECIL ,
Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Filed: October 19, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Michael J. Reardon , District Judge.
Order revoking probation, affirmed

. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Lara E. Anderson , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming
, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

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

________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Nathan Dean Cecil pleaded guilty to two counts of voyeurism. I.C. § 18

- 6609 . The
district court sentenced Cecil to a five

- year s entence , with two years determinate, and a three year indeterminate sentence
, to run consecutively. The dis trict court suspended the sentences
and placed Cecil on probation. Subsequently, Cecil admitted to violating the terms of the probation, and the district court revoked probation, ordered execution of the original sentence, and retained jurisdiction

. Cecil 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

- 22 2; 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. Hass , 114 Idaho 554, 558, 758 P.2d 713, 717 (Ct. App. 1988). In determining whether to revoke pro bation a court must examine whether the probation is achieving the goal of rehabilitation 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; Has s , 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 the alternative, the
court is authorized under I.C.R. 35 to reduce the sentence. Beckett , 122 Idah o 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. 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

. Apply ing the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district c ourt abused its discretion in revoking probation . Therefore, the order revoking probation
, executi ng Cecil ’s previously suspended sentence, and re taining jurisdiction
is affirmed.