1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39314

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

JUSTIN L. WAINSHILBAUM , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 534

Filed: June 25, 2012
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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Michael R. McLaughlin , District Judge.
Order revoking probation and requiring execution of unified fifteen

- year sentence with two

- year determinate term for sexual abuse of a child
, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appell ate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appe llant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM
Justin L. Wainshilbaum was convicted of sexual abuse of a child , Idaho Code § 18

- 1506

. The district court imposed a unified fifteen

- year sentence with a three

- year determinate term, suspended the sen tence , and placed Wainshilbaum on probation for fifteen years with the condition that he remain incarcerated in jail for 365 days with credit for time served

. Subseque ntly, Wainshilbaum admitted to violating several terms of the probation, an d the district court consequently revoked probation
, ordered execution of the original sentence , and retained jurisdiction

. At the conclusion of the retained jurisdiction period, Wainshilbaum was returned to probation. After admitting to several probation violations, the district court revoked2 Wainshilbaum’s probation and executed his original sentence, reducing the determinat e term to two years. Wainshilbaum appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation and that the sentence is excessive.
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 Idaho 1053, 1054, 77 2 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 th e 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 th at 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. Bec kett , 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 need not be repeate d 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 revi ewing 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 ent ire 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 o riginal sentencing and the revocation of the probation. Id

.3 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 ordering
execution o f Wainshilbaum ’s reduced sentence . Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Wainshilbaum ’s previously suspended sentence is affirmed.