1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 38649

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

JOSE M. FORTUNO

- GARCIA , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 387

Filed: March 5, 2012
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Jerome County. Hon. John K. Butler , District Judge.
Order revoking probation and requiring execution of unified five

- year sentence with two

- year determinate term for felony driving under th e influence of alcohol
, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

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

PER CURIAM
Jose M. Fortuno

- Garcia was convicted of felony driving under the influence of alcohol
, Idaho Code § 18

- 8004. The district court imposed a unified five

- year sentence with a two

- year determinate term, but after a period of retained jurisdiction, suspended the sentence and placed
Fortuno

- Garcia on probation. Subsequently, Fortuno

- Garcia admitted to violating several terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoke d probation and ordered execution of the original sentence. Fortuno

- Garcia appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation and that the sentence is excessive.2 It is within the trial court’s discretion to revoke probation if any of the terms and conditions of the probation have been violate d. 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 determi ning 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 Idah o 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). 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 discretion. Both our s tandard 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 , 10 6 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 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 reviewe d the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion either in revoking probation or in ordering
execution of Fortuno

- Garcia ’s original senten ce without modification. Therefore, the order3 revoking probation and directing execution of Fortuno

- Garcia ’s previously suspended sentence is
affirmed.