STATE v. REID (2021)

Court of Appeals of Kansas.2021-11-05No. No. 123,734

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's revocation of Reid's probation and imposition of his underlying prison sentence, finding no abuse of discretion because Reid committed a new felony while on probation, triggering a statutory exception to the intermediate sanctions requirement.

Dwight Reid appealed the revocation of his probation and the activation of his underlying 27-month prison sentence. Reid had been convicted of criminal threat and felon in possession of a firearm, and initially received a dispositional departure allowing him to serve his sentence on probation. While on probation, Reid committed a new felony—a registration violation—and pleaded guilty to it. The district court revoked his probation based on the new crime, his original sentence structure, and his criminal history.

The appellate court examined whether the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation. Kansas law generally requires courts to impose graduated intermediate sanctions before revoking probation; however, an exception permits immediate revocation without prior sanctions when an offender commits a new felony or misdemeanor while on probation. Since Reid's new offense was undisputed, the court determined the district court had clear legal authority to revoke probation and that a reasonable person could support that decision.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether revocation of probation constituted an abuse of discretion
Application of statutory exception to intermediate sanctions requirement for new felonies committed during probation
Standard for abuse of discretion review in probation revocation cases

Procedural posture

Reid appealed from the district court's revocation of his probation following his guilty plea to a felony registration violation committed while on probation.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Dwight Reid appeals the district courts revocation of his probation and the imposition of his underlying prison sentence. We granted Reids motion for summary disposition pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 48). The State has not responded. After a review of the record, we affirm.

Pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, Reid pled no contest to one count of criminal threat, a severity level 9 person felony, and criminal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, a severity level 8 person felony, for crimes committed in July 2017. Reids presentence investigation report showed his criminal history score to be A. At the sentencing hearing on March 29, 2018, the district court sentenced Reid to an aggregate sentence of 27 months in prison for both counts but granted Reid his request for a dispositional departure to probation from that sentence for a period of 18 months.

While on probation, Reid subsequently pled guilty to a new offense of felony offender registration violation in case 18 CR 1930. At the probation revocation hearing, given Reids guilty plea in the new case, the district court found Reid to be in violation of the terms and conditions of probation, revoked his probation, and ordered Reid to serve his underlying prison sentence. The district court cited Reids commission of a new crime, the fact he was originally given a dispositional departure to probation, and his extensive criminal history as grounds for revocation.

Reid now appeals, arguing the district court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his underlying prison sentence. Once a probation violation has been established, the decision to revoke probation is within the sound discretion of the district court. See State v. Coleman, 311 Kan. 332, 334, 460 P.3d 828 (2020); State v. Skolaut, 286 Kan. 219, 227-28, 182 P.3d 1231 (2008). A district court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on legal or factual errors or if no reasonable person would agree with its decision. State v. Ballou, 310 Kan. 591, 615, 448 P.3d 479 (2019). Reid bears the burden to show an abuse of discretion by the district court. See State v. Thomas, 307 Kan. 733, 739, 415 P.3d 430 (2018).

In this case, the district courts discretion on whether to revoke probation was limited by the intermediate sanctions outlined in K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3716. According to the law in effect at the time Reid committed his crimes, a district court was required to impose graduated intermediate sanctions before revoking an offenders probation. See K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3716(c); State v. Huckey, 51 Kan. App. 2d 451, 454, 348 P.3d 997 (2015). However, there are exceptions which permit a district court to revoke a defendants probation without having previously imposed the statutorily required intermediate sanctions. One exception allows the district court to revoke probation without imposing sanctions if “the offender commits a new felony or misdemeanor while the offender is on probation.” K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3716(c)(8)(A).

Here, it is undisputed that Reid committed a new crime while on probation, meaning the district court had the legal authority to revoke Reids probation. Moreover, Reid fails to persuade us why he should have been placed back on probation given his commission of a new crime while on probation. Under these facts, we have no trouble concluding that a reasonable person could agree with the district courts decision to revoke Reids probation and order that he serve his underlying prison sentence.

Affirmed.

Per Curiam: