1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 38586

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

LARRY LEE DANIELS , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2011 Unpublished Opinion No. 765

Filed: December 30, 2011
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS I S AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Thi rd Judicial District, State of Idaho, Washington County. Hon. Susan E.Wiebe , District Judge.
Order revoking probation and requiring execution of unified three

- year sentence with one

- year determinate term for aggravated assault
, affirmed

. Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defe nder; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jason M. Gray, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

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

PER CURIAM Larry Lee Daniels was convicted of aggravated assault , Idaho Code §§ 18

- 901(a); 18

- 905(a). The district court imposed a unified three

- year sentence with a one

- year determinate
term, but after a period of retained jurisdiction, suspended the sentence and placed Daniels on probation. Subsequently, Daniels was found to have violated several terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered executio n of the original sentence.
Daniels appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation and in failing to sua sponte reduce his sentence upon revocation of probation.2 It is within the trial court’s discretion to revoke probation if any of the terms and

co nditions 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 is 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 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). 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 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 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 senten ce was imposed as well as events occurring between the original sentencing and the revocation of the probation. Id

. 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 Daniels ’ original sentence without modification. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Daniels ’ previously suspended sentence is affirmed.