STATE v. WALKER (2021)

Court of Appeals of Kansas.2021-07-02No. No. 123,475

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's revocation of Walker's probation and imposition of his underlying nine-month prison sentence, finding no abuse of discretion where Walker committed new crimes while on probation.

James Walker pleaded no contest to felony theft in 2018 and received a 12-month probation term with a 9-month underlying prison sentence. While on probation, Walker violated the terms by using drugs without a prescription in May 2019, and the State later filed two probation-violation warrants alleging he committed additional thefts. Walker admitted to these violations in August 2020, and the district court revoked his probation and imposed the 9-month prison sentence in November 2020.

Walker appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion by revoking his probation rather than reinstating it. The appellate court reviewed the decision under an abuse-of-discretion standard, which examines whether the lower court's ruling was based on legal or factual error or was otherwise arbitrary and unreasonable. Because Kansas law permitted courts to bypass graduated sanctions and revoke probation when a probationer commits a new crime, and Walker had admittedly committed additional thefts while on probation, the court found the district court's decision to revoke was neither unreasonable nor an abuse of discretion.

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

Key issues

Whether revocation of probation for commission of new crimes constitutes abuse of discretion
Application of Kansas's graduated-sanction system for probation violations
Statutory authority to revoke probation when probationer commits new offenses

Procedural posture

Walker appealed the district court's November 2020 revocation of his probation and imposition of his underlying sentence following his August 2020 admission to probation violations based on new theft charges committed while on probation.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM OPINION

James Walker appeals the district courts revocation of his probation and imposition of his underlying sentence. This court previously granted Walkers motion for summary disposition under Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 48). Finding no error, we affirm the district courts decision.

In October 2018, Walker pleaded no contest to a felony theft he committed on October 4, 2017. The district court sentenced Walker to 12 months probation with an underlying 9-month prison sentence and ordered him to pay $1,805 in restitution.

In May 2019, Walker served a two-day jail sanction after he admitted to violating the conditions of his probation by possessing and using drugs without a prescription. In the year that followed, the State filed two probation-violation warrants alleging that Walker had committed new crimes—additional thefts—while on probation. Walker stipulated to the violations alleged in the warrants in August 2020. At a hearing in November 2020, the district court revoked Walkers probation and imposed his underlying nine-month prison sentence. Walker appeals this decision.

We review the district courts revocation of a persons probation for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Collins, 303 Kan. 472, 476, 362 P.3d 1098 (2015) (court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an error of law or fact or is otherwise arbitrary or unreasonable). When Walker committed theft in 2017, Kansas employed a graduated-sanction system for addressing probation violations. Once the State established a probation violation had occurred, a court could impose a 2- or 3-day jail sanction for an initial probation violation, a 120- or 180-day prison sanction for a second violation, and revoke probation for a third violation. K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3716(c)(1)(B)-(E). But relevant to Walkers case, a court could bypass these graduated sanctions and revoke a persons probation if he or she committed a new crime. K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3716(c)(8)(A).

On appeal, Walker concedes that the district court had statutory authority to revoke his probation since he committed new crimes. But he argues that the court abused its discretion because the facts warranted reinstating his probation. Having reviewed the record, we find nothing unreasonable about the district courts decision to revoke Walkers probation and impose his underlying sentence. Walker committed additional thefts while on probation for his original theft conviction. The district court did not err when it revoked Walkers probation and imposed his nine-month prison sentence.

Affirmed.

Per Curiam: