1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45559

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

MITCH MATTHEW BATTISTI ,
Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2018 Unpublished Opinion No. 464

Filed: May 22, 2018
Karel A. Lehrman, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Deborah A. Bail , District Judge.
Order revoking probation, affirmed

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

________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________ PER CURIAM
Mitch Matthew Battisti pled guilty to aggravated assault . I.C. § § 18

- 901(b), 18

- 905(b)

. The district court sentenced Battisti to a unified term of five years with two years determinate
and retained jurisdiction. Following the period of retained jurisdiction, the district court suspended Battisti’s sentence and placed him on supervised probation for a period of five years. Subsequently, Battisti admitted to violating the terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence. Battisti appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation. It is within the trial court’s discretion to revoke p robation if any of the terms and conditions of the probation have been violated. I.C. §§ 19

- 2603, 20

- 222; State v. Beckett , 1222 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); Sta te 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 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 established, order that the suspended 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 jurisdi ction. 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 probation revocation, the focu s 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 before the trial court relevant t o the revocation of probation issues which are properly made part of the record on appeal. Id

. 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 probat ion. Id. Thus, this Court will consider the elements of the record before the trial court that are properly made part of the record on appeal and are relevant to the defendant’s contention that the trial court should have reduced the sentence sua sponte upon revocation of probation. Morgan , 153 Idaho at 621, 288 P.3d at
838. Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation . Therefore, the or der revoking probation and directing execution of Battisti ’s previously suspended sentence is
affirmed.