1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41441

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

ELIJAH RAPHINO , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 505

Filed: May 15, 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 Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Renae J. Hoff , District Judge.
Order revoking probation and requiring execution of unified twenty

- year sentence , with ten

- year determinate term
, for rape , affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Justi n M. Curtis, 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; LANSING, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM Elijah Raphino , a juvenile, pled guilty to rape in adult court. I.C. § 18

- 6101 . In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed and the parties agreed to request
a blended sentence in which Raphino would be committed to the Department of Juvenile Corrections until age twenty

- one. The district court imposed a unified twenty

- year sentence with

a ten

- year determinate term, but suspended the sentence and committed Raphino to the Department of Juvenile Corrections. Just prior to Raphino ’s twenty

- first birthday, the district court held a hearing and agreed to place Raphino on probation. Subsequently, Raphino admitted to violating the terms of the probation, and the district court consequently re voked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence. Raphino filed an I.C.R. 35 motion for2 reduction of his sentence, which the district court denied. Raphino appea ls, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation, that the sentence is excessive, and that the district court should have sua sponte reduced the sentence. 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 , 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 determining 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 Idaho 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 alt ernative, 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 jurisd iction. 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 reviewi ng 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 elem ents of the record before the trial court relevant to the revocation 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 t o 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 will examine the entire record encompassing events before and after the original3 judgment. State v. Hanington , 148 Idaho 26, 29, 218 P.3d 5, 8 (Ct. App. 2009). W e 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 reduced the sentence sua sponte upon revocation of probation. Morgan , 153 Idaho at 621, 288 P.3d at
838. Applying the foregoi ng standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion either in revoking probation or in ordering
execution of Raphino ’s original sentence without modification. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Raphino ’s previously suspended sentence is affirmed.