1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45144

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

ERIC PAUL THARPE ,
Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2018 Unpublished Opinion No. 381

Filed: March 7, 2018
Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bannock County. Hon. Stephen S. Dunn , District Judge.
Order revoking probation, affirmed

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

________________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Eric Paul Tharpe pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance . I.C. § 37

- 2732(c)(1) . The district court sentenced Tharpe to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years , but after a period of retained jurisdiction , suspended the

sentence and placed Tharpe on probation. Subsequently, Tharpe admitted to violating the terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence

. Tharpe appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation.2 It is within the trial c ourt’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. 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 protectio n 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 susp ended sentence be executed or, in the alternative, the
court is authorized under I.C.R. 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. 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 p robation 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 befo re the trial court relevant to the revocation of probation issues which are properly made part of the record on appeal. Id

. Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its dis cretion either in revoking probation or in ordering
execution of Tharpe ’s sentence . Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution
of Tharpe ’s previously suspended sentence is affirm ed.