1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 36909

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

RONTE RESEAN EATON , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2010 Unpublished Opi nion No. 684

Filed: October 21, 2010
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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Darla S. Williamson , District Judge.
Order revoking probation and requiring execution of unified ten

- year sentence with two

- year determinate ter m for aid and abet robbery
, affirmed ; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

. Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appell ant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

______________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM
Ronte Resean Eaton pled guilty to an amended charge of aid and abet robbery . I.C. § 18

- 6501, 18

- 6502 . The district court imposed a unified ten

- year sentence with a two

- year determinate term, but after a period of retained jurisdiction, suspended the sentence and placed
Eaton on probation. Following an additional period of retained jurisdiction and several further probation violations, Eaton admitted to violating the terms of his probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence. Eaton filed an I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of his sentence, which the district court denied. Eaton appeals,2

contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation
, that his sentence is excessive, and that the district court erred in denying his Rule 35 motion. It is within the trial court’s discretion to revoke probation if a ny 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 , 1 14 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 Idaho 2 74, 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 alte rnative, 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 a ppeal 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 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 order ed 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 existi ng when the sentence was imposed as well as events occurring between the original sentencing and the revocation of probation. Id. A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency,
addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton , 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee , 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of3

new or add itional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the
motion. State v. Huffman , 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). In conducting our review of the grant or denial of a Rule 35 motion, we consider the entire record a nd apply the same criteria used for determining the reasonableness of the original sentence. State v. Forde
, 113 Idaho 21, 22, 740 P.2d 63, 64 (Ct. App. 1987); Lopez , 106 Idaho at 449

- 51, 680 P.2d at 871

- 73. 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 and in ordering
execution of Eaton ’s original sentence without modification or in denying Eaton’s Rule 35

mo tion . Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Eaton ’s previously suspended sentence and the order denying his Rule 35 motion are affirmed.