THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

PER CURIAM

Johnathan Wesley Raper pled guilty to felony domestic battery. I.C. §§ 18-903, 18-918(2). The district court imposed a unified nine-year sentence, with a three-year determinate term, but suspended the sentence and placed Raper on probation. Subsequently, Raper was found to have violated the terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence. However, the district court retained jurisdiction and, following completion of his rider, the district court again suspended the sentence and placed Raper on probation. Raper appeals, contending that the district court lacked substantial evidence to conclude Roper knowingly and intentionally violated a condition of probation amounting to a no-contact order involving the victim.

A district court's finding that there was a probation violation will be upheld if there is substantial evidence in the record to support the finding. State v. Lafferty, 125 Idaho 378, 381, 870 P.2d 1337, 1340 (Ct. App. 1994). To comply with the principles of due process, "a court may revoke probation only upon evidence that the probationer has in fact violated the terms or conditions of probation." Id.

State v. Leach, 135 Idaho 525, 529, 20 P.3d 709, 713 (Ct. App. 2001) (citations omitted).

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 alternative, the court is authorized under Idaho Criminal Rule 35 to reduce the sentence. Beckett, 122 Idaho at 326, 834 P.2d at 328; State v. Marks, 116 Idaho 976, 977, 783 P.2d 315, 316 (Ct. App. 1989). 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 326, 834 P.2d at 328.

Sentencing is also 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 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.

Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court erred in finding that Roper's violation of the no-contact order was committed knowingly and intentionally or that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation. Therefore, the order revoking probation is affirmed.