STATE v. HUFFSTUTLER (2021)

Court of Appeals of Kansas.2021-06-18No. No. 123,467

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court's imposition of the 60-day jail sanction was affirmed because the sanction was authorized by statute, was requested by both parties, and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

Travis Lee Huffstutler appealed a district court's decision to impose a 60-day jail sanction for violating the conditions of his probation. Huffstutler had pleaded guilty to vehicle burglary and misdemeanor theft in 2019 and received a 12-month probation sentence instead of serving his original 16-month prison term. At a probation violation hearing in October 2020, Huffstutler admitted to failing to remain law-abiding, and both he and the prosecution agreed to a 60-day jail sanction, which he had already served in full.

The appellate court found no basis for relief. Because Huffstutler had admitted the violation and actually requested the sanction imposed, the trial court's decision fell well within its legal authority. The court noted that the judge could have revoked probation entirely and required Huffstutler to serve his original sentence, making the 60-day sanction a comparatively lenient outcome. Accordingly, the court saw no abuse of discretion in the trial court's ruling.

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

Key issues

Whether a jail sanction for probation violation constitutes an abuse of discretion
Judicial authority to impose interim jail sanctions versus revocation and service of original sentence
Standard of review for probation-related sanctions

Procedural posture

Huffstutler appealed the district court's imposition of a 60-day jail sanction imposed at a probation violation hearing where he admitted the violation.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Travis Lee Huffstutler appeals the district courts decision imposing a 60-day jail sanction for his probation violation. We granted Huffstutlers motion for summary disposition under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 48). The State has filed no response.

On June 20, 2019, Huffstutler pled guilty to one count of burglary of a vehicle and one count of misdemeanor theft for crimes committed in December 2018. On December 4, 2019, the district court imposed a controlling sentence of 16-months imprisonment but granted a dispositional departure to probation for 12 months.

At a hearing on October 30, 2020, Huffstutler admitted to violating the conditions of his probation by “fail[ing] to remain law abiding.” At the request of both parties, the district court imposed a 60-day jail sanction and gave Huffstutler credit for the full 60 days that he had served. The district court did not modify or extend the probation in any way. Huffstutlers counsel timely filed a notice of appeal.

The district courts imposition of the jail sanction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. A judicial action constitutes an abuse of discretion if (1) it is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable; (2) it is based on an error of law; or (3) it is based on an error of fact. State v. Ingham, 308 Kan. 1466, 1469, 430 P.3d 931 (2018).

We are somewhat at a loss as to why Huffstutler has brought this appeal. Huffstutler admitted to violating his probation by failing to remain law abiding. The district court imposed the 60-day jail sanction Huffstutler requested, and the sanction was authorized under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3716(c)(9). Under these facts, the district court would have been within its discretion to revoke Huffstutlers probation and order him to serve his original sentence. See K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3716(c)(7)(B) and (c)(7)(C). There was no abuse of discretion by ordering the 60-day jail sanction.

Affirmed.

Per Curiam: