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2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 547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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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 District, 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 years determinate for the first count of forgery, and 

fourteen years with four years 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 determinate 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 ordered 
2

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

its discretion 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 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 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 without modification. Therefore, the order directing execution of Ravellette’s 

previously suspended sentences is affirmed.