1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44217

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

TRAVIS SHANE MAI ,
Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 315

Filed: January 13, 2017
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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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, Cassia County. Hon. Michael R. Crabtree , District Judge.
Order revoking probation and execution of previously suspended sentence, affirmed

. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds
, 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; MELANSON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________ PER CURIAM
Travis Shane Mai pled guilty to felony driving under the influence . I.C. § § 18

- 8004 and
18

- 8005(6) . The district court withheld judgment and placed Mai on probation. Thereafter, Mai admitted to violating the terms of his probation. The district court consequently revoked the withheld judgment and probation. The district court entered a judgment of conviction and
sentenced Mai to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of two

years

. The district court suspended the sentence and again placed Mai on probation. Subsequently, Mai admitted to violating the terms of the probation, and the distr ict court revoked2

probation and ordered execution of Mai’s sentence

. However, the district court retained jurisdiction and sent Mai to participate in the rider program. Mai filed an I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of his sentence, which the district cou rt denied. Mai appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation. 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

- 260 3, 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 determining whether to re voke 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 jurisdiction. 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 focus of the inquiry is the conduct underlying the trial court’s decision to revoke probation. Stat e 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 to the revocation of probation issues which are properly made part of the record on appeal. 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 ordering
execution of Mai ’s sentence . Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of
Mai ’s previously suspended sentence is affi rmed.