1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37291

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

WILLIAM JACOB MEDLEY , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2011 Unpublished O pinion No. 333

Filed: January 26, 2011
Stephen W. Kenyon, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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 E. Wetherell , District Judge.
Order revoking probation and requiring execution of unified ten

- year sentence , with four

- year determinat e term , for felony domestic violence
, affirmed

. Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Was den, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

______________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and GUTIERREZ, Judge

PER CURIAM William Jacob Medley pled guilty to felony domestic violence . I.C. § 18

- 903, 18

- 918(2)

. In exchange for his guilty plea, a charge of attempted strangulation was dismissed. The district court imposed a unified ten

- year sentence , with a four

- year determinate term, suspended the sentence and placed Medley on probation. Medley thereafter admitted to violating the terms of the probation, and the district court revoked probation, ordered execution of the sentence, and

r etained jurisdiction. Medley successfully completed his rider
, and the district court again placed Medley on probation. Subsequently, Medley admitted to violating the terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original2 sentence. Medley appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation and that the sentence is excessive. 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. Ha ss , 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. Upton , 127 Id aho 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 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 evaluatin g 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); Stat e 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 sentence was imposed as well as events occurring between the original sentencing and the revocation of probation. Id. Applying the foregoing standard s, 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 Medley ’s original sentence without modification. Therefore, the order revoki ng probation and directing execution of Medley ’s previously suspended sentence is affirmed.