1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 46167

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

ISOM LEE HUDSON ,
Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Filed: March 27, 2019
Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Minidoka County. Hon. Jonathan P. Brody , District Judge.
Order revoking probation and execution of previously suspended sentence, affirmed

. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge

________________________________________________ PER CURIAM
Isom Lee Hudson pled guilty to felony driving under the influence . I.C. § 18

- 8004 . The
district court sentenced Hudson to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years
, b ut after a period of retained jurisdiction , suspended the sentence and placed Hudson on probation. Hudson filed an I.C.R. 35 motion seeking a reduction of his sentence, which the district court denied. Hudson appealed that denial, and this Court af firmed
in an un published opinion. See State v. Hudson , Docket No. 45137 (Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2018).2 Subsequently, Hudson admitted to violating the terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence

. Hudson appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation and that the
sentence is excessive and should have been sua sponte reduced by the district court. It is within the trial court’s discretion 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 , 1 22 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 ex amine 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, 7 58 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 I.C.R. 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 o n 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 re voke 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 re cord on appeal. Id

. 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 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 reduced3 the sentence sua sponte upon revocation of probation. State v. Morgan , 153 Idaho 618, 621, 288
P.3 d 835, 838 (Ct. App. 2012). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in either revoking probation or in ordering execution of
Hudson ’s sentence without modifica tion. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing
execution of Hudson ’s previously suspended sentence is affi rmed.