1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39458

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.
COLBY TYLER HICKEY, aka COOKSON; HICKEY

- COOKSON , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 690

Filed: October 24, 2012
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourt h Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Cheri C. Copsey , District Judge.
Order revoking probation and requiring execution of unified fifteen

- year sentence with two

- year determinate term for aggravated battery
, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public D efender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

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

PER CURIAM
Co lby Tyler Hickey was convicted of aggravated battery , Idaho Code §§ 18

- 903(a), 18

- 907(b). The district court imposed a unified fifteen

- year sentence with a three

- year determinate
term, but after a period of retained jurisdiction, suspended the sentence and placed Hickey on probation. Subsequently, Hickey admitted to violating several terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence, reducing the determinate term to two years. Hickey appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation or, alternatively, in failing to further reduce his sentence upon revoking probation.2 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 Id aho 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); 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 est ablished, 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 it s discretion. Beckett , 122 Idaho at 325, 834
P.2d at 327. 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 n eed 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 ordered into execution following a period of probation, we wi ll 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 occur ring 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 or dering
execution of Hickey ’s reduced sentence . Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing
execution of Hickey ’s previously suspended , modified sentence is affirmed.