STATE v. REED (2021)

Court of Appeals of Kansas.2021-06-11No. No. 123,238

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's revocation of Reed's probation and its order that Reed serve his original sentences in both cases.

Baylor Derrick Reed appealed after a district court revoked his probation in two cases and ordered him to serve his original prison sentences. Reed had been placed on probation following convictions for robbery in one case and criminal threat and domestic battery in another. While on probation, Reed committed new crimes involving criminal damage to property and battery in a domestic violence context. At a hearing, the district court found these violations and revoked his probation, requiring him to serve the sentences that had been suspended when probation was granted.

Reed argued on appeal that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to reinstate his probation. However, Reed conceded that the court could skip intermediate sanctions when a defendant commits new crimes while on probation. The appellate court found that Reed did not challenge the underlying probation violations and that the court had authority to revoke probation without imposing lesser sanctions, particularly because one probation term stemmed from a dispositional departure. The court determined the revocation decision was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.

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

Key issues

Whether the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation upon new criminal violations
Whether intermediate sanctions were required before revocation when new crimes were committed on probation
Standard of review for probation revocation decisions

Procedural posture

Reed appealed the district court's probation revocation in two consolidated cases after the court found he violated probation by committing new crimes and ordered him to serve his original sentences.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Baylor Derrick Reed appeals the district courts decision revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his original sentences in two separate cases. We granted Reeds motion for summary disposition under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 48). The State has filed no response.

In case No. 17CR1479, Read was convicted of robbery for a crime committed in July 2017. The district court sentenced Reed to 43 months imprisonment but granted a dispositional departure to probation for 36 months. In case No. 18CR1748, Reed was convicted of one count of criminal threat and one count of misdemeanor domestic battery. The district court sentenced Reed to 7 months imprisonment on the felony and a consecutive term of 6 months in jail on the misdemeanor, and the district court placed Reed on probation for 36 months. The district court also ordered the sentence in case No. 18CR1748 to be consecutive to the sentence in the prior case.

At an evidentiary hearing on August 13, 2020, the district court found that Reed violated the conditions of probation in each case by committing new crimes of criminal damage to property and battery involving the mother of his child. The district court revoked Reeds probation and ordered him to serve his original sentences. Reed timely filed a notice of appeal in each case and the cases have been consolidated on appeal.

On appeal, Reed claims the district court “abused its discretion by refusing to reinstate [his] probation.” But Reed concedes that the district court can bypass intermediate sanctions when the defendant commits new crimes on probation.

The procedure for revoking a defendants probation is governed by K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3716. Generally, once there has been evidence of a violation of the conditions of probation, the decision to revoke probation rests in the district courts sound discretion. State v. Gumfory, 281 Kan. 1168, 1170, 135 P.3d 1191 (2006). An abuse of discretion occurs when judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable; is based on an error of law; or is based on an error of fact. State v. Mosher, 299 Kan. 1, 3, 319 P.3d 1253 (2014). The party asserting the district court abused its discretion bears the burden of showing such abuse of discretion. State v. Stafford, 296 Kan. 25, 45, 290 P.3d 562 (2012).

Reed violated his probation by committing criminal damage to property and battery arising from a domestic violence situation, and Reed does not challenge the probation violation finding on appeal. As a result, the district court could revoke Reeds probation in each case without imposing an intermediate sanction. See K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3716(c)(8)(A). Whats more, the district court could bypass intermediate sanctions in case No. 17CR1479 because the probation in that case resulted from a dispositional departure. See K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3716(c)(9)(B). The district courts decision to revoke Reeds probation was not arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, and it was not based on an error of fact or law. Reed has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his original prison sentences.

Affirmed.

Per Curiam: