1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 36772

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

AMANDA NICHOLE RAVELLETTE ,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2010 Unpublis hed Opinion No. 547

Filed: July 9, 2010

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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 Distric t, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Michael E. Wetherell , District Judge.

Order revoking probation and requiring execution of concurrent unified sentences of fourteen years with three year s determinate for the first count of forgery, and fourteen years with four year s determinate for the second count of forgery, affirmed

.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant

.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________
Before LANSING, Chief Judge, GRATTON, Judge

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Amanda Nichole Ravellette was convicted of two counts of forgery , Idaho Code § 18

-
3601. The district court imposed concurrent unified sentences of fourteen years with three years

determinate for the first count of forgery, and fourteen years with four years det erminate for the

second count of forgery, and ordered the sentences to run concurrently with sentences in separate

cases. Following a period of retained jurisdiction, the district court suspended the sentence and

placed Ravellette on supervised probation. Subsequently, Ravellette admitted to violating

several terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered2

execution of the original sentences. Ravellette appeals, contending that the district court abused

its discr etion in failing to sua sponte reduce her sentences upon revoking probation.
Sentencing is 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 esta blished 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 prob ation, we do not base our review upon the facts existing when the

sentence was imposed. Rather we examine all the circumstances bearing upon the decision to

revoke probation and require execution of the sentence, including events that occurred between

the original pronouncement of the sentence and the revocation of probation. Adams , 115 Idaho

at 1055, 772 P.2d at 262; State v. Grove , 109 Idaho 372, 373, 707 P.2d 483, 484 (Ct. App. 1985);

State v. Tucker , 103 Idaho 885, 888, 655 P.2d 92, 95 (Ct. App. 1982).

Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot

say that the district court abused its discretion in ordering execution of Ravellette’s original

sentences wit hout modification. Therefore, the order directing execution of Ravellette ’s

previously suspended sentences is affirmed.