1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39114

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

HASAN ICANOVIC , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 407

Filed: March 20, 2012
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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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 eight

- year sentence with three

- year determinate term for felony domestic violence
, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellat e Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for ap pellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

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

PER CURIAM
Hasan Icanovic was convicted of felony domestic violence , Idaho Code §§ 18

- 903, 18

- 918(2). The district court imposed a unified eight

- year sentence with a three

- year determinate
term, but after a period of retained jurisdiction, suspended the sentence and placed Icanovic on supervised probation. Subsequently, Icanovic admitted to violating several terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and or dered execution of the original sentence. Icanovic appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation and in failing to sua sponte reduce his sentence.2 It is within the trial court’s discretion to revoke probation if any of the terms and conditions of the probation hav e 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); Bec kett , 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 Cr iminal 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 abused its discretion. Beckett , 122 Idaho at 325, 834
P.2d at 327. Sentencing is also a matter for the trial court’s discretio n. 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); Stat e 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 I daho 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 Idah o 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

. 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 Icanovic ’s origina l sentence without modification. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Icanovic ’s previously suspended sentence is affirmed.