1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 40804/40805

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

CHRISTY ANN CRANDALL , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 713

Filed: October 17, 2013
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourt h Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Deborah A. Bail , District Judge.
Order revoking probation and reinstating previously suspended unified ten

- year sentence with two

- year determinate term for grand theft
, affirmed

. Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentence of ten years with two years determin ate for forgery, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deput y Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

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

PER CURIAM In Docket No. 40805, Christy Ann Crandall was convicted of grand theft, Idaho
Code § § 18

- 2403(1), 18

- 2407(1) (b). T he district court imposed a unified ten

- year sentence with

a two

- year determinate term and retained jurisdiction

. At the conclusion of the retained jurisdiction period, t he court suspended the sentence and placed Crandall on supervised probation for ten years

. Subsequently, i n Docket No. 40804, Crandall was convicted of forgery, I.C. § 18

- 3601, in violation of her probation in Docket No. 40805. The district cour t revoked probation in Docket No. 40805 and ordered execution of the underlying sentence

. T he district2 court imposed a unified ten

- year sentence with a two

- year determinate term for forgery, to run concurrently with the grand theft sentence. Crandall fil ed Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motions for reduction of her sentences in both cases, which were denied. On appeal, Crandall does not challenge the district court’s decision to revok e probation or the denial of her Rule 35 motions
, but argues only that the district court abused its discretion in failing to sua sponte reduce her sentence in the grand theft case
, and that her sentence in the forgery case is excessive. Sentencing is a ma tter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the 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 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 revo cation of the probation. Id

. Thus, this Court will
consider the elements of the record before 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

. State v. Morgan , 153 Idaho 618, 621, 288 P.3d 835, 838 (Ct. App. 2012). Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discr etion either in revoking probation or in ordering execution of Crandall’s original sentence without modification. Therefore, the order revoking probation in Docket No. 40805 and directing execution of Crandall ’ s previously suspended

sentence , and the judgment of conviction and sentence in Docket No. 40804 are affirmed.