1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43093

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.
JACQUE ZACHARY CARR ,
Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 358

Filed: January 29, 2016
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bannock County. Hon. Stephen S. Dunn , District Judge.
Order revoking probation and ordering execution of sentence, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Ho n. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Jacque Zachary Carr pleaded guilty to aggravated battery, Idaho Code § 18

- 903 and § 18

- 807(1)(a) . The district court imposed a unified six

- year sentence, w ith three years
determinate
, suspended the sentence
, and placed Carr on probation. Subsequently, Carr admitted to violating the terms of his probation. The district court revoked probation and placed Carr on a period of retained jurisdiction. Following the period of retained jurisdiction, the district court suspended the sentence an d placed Carr on probation . Once again, Carr violated the terms of his probation and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original s entence. Carr filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion and the district court denied the2

motion. 1 Carr appeals, contending the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation
and the sentence is excessive.
It is within the trial court’s discre tion 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, 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 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 sentenc e 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. 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. 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 to the revocation of probation issues which are properly made part of the record on appeal. Id

. 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).

1 The Minute Entry a nd Order denying Carr’s I.C.R. 35 motion filed in district court on July 7, 2015, is not include d in the Clerk’s Record. Carr does n ot appeal from the denial of his I.C.R. 35 denial.3

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 probation. Id. Thus, this Court will
consider the elements of the record befor e 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 i n this case, we cannot

say the district court abused its discretion either in revoking probation or in ordering execution of
Carr’s sentence without modification. Therefore, the order rev oking probation and directing
execution of Carr’s previously suspended sentence is affirmed.