1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41242

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

AUSTIN M. WILLIAMS , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 521

Filed: May 23, 2014
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN U NPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, State of Idaho, Lewis County. Hon. Michael J. Griffin , Dist rict Judge.
Order revoking probation and requiring execution of unified ten

- year sentence with four

- year determinate term for lewd co nduct with a minor under sixteen
, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

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

PER CURIAM
Austin M. Williams pled guilty to lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen . Idaho Code § 18

- 1508 . The district court imposed a unified ten

- year sentence with a four

- year determinate
term, but after a period of retained jurisdiction, suspended the sentence and placed Williams on probation. Subsequently, Williams admitted to violating several terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence.
Williams appeals , contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation
and failing to sua sponte reduce his sentence

.2 It is within the trial court’s discretion to revoke probation if any of the terms and conditions of the probation have been viol ated. 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 dete rmining 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 Idah o 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 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 rev ocation 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 senten ce 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). 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 im posed as well as events occurring between the original sentencing and the revocation of the probation. Id

. Thus, this Court will3 consider the elements of the record before the trial court that are properly made part of the record on appeal and are releva nt to the defendant’s contention that the trial court should have reduced the sentence sua sponte upon re vocation of probation. Morgan , 153 Idaho at 621, 288 P.3d at
838. Applying the foregoing standards
, and assuming Williams can challenge the district

c ourt’s failure to sua sponte reduce his sentence , we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion either in revoking probation or in ordering execution of Williams ’ original sentence without modification. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of
Williams ’ previously suspended sentence is affirmed.