MEMORANDUM OPINION
Marques Singletary appeals the revocation of his probation. We granted Singletarys motion for summary disposition of his appeal under Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 48). Finding no abuse of discretion by the district court, we affirm.
After Singletary pled no contest, he was convicted of aggravated burglary, a severity level 4 person felony. He committed this crime in November 2019. At his sentencing hearing, Singletary apologized for his crime and explained that he did not have his medication at the time and he would “never do anything like that again.” The district court sentenced Singletary to 56 months in prison but granted a downward dispositional departure to 36 months’ probation.
After he was arrested and charged with burglary of a vehicle, the State, in March 2021, alleged Singletary violated his probation by failing to remain crime free.
At the probation violation hearing, Singletary stipulated to the violation. He argued that he committed the theft when he ran out of his medication, he had given the victim his money back, and the victim did not want to press charges. The district court revoked Singletarys probation and ordered him to serve his original sentence for several reasons: he had committed a new crime; he was a threat to public safety because he had committed multiple burglaries; and his original sentence was the result of a dispositional departure.
Singletary timely appeals, claiming that revocation was unreasonable because he committed the new crime when he did not have access to his schizophrenia medication. He maintains that his psychiatrist was better equipped to address his underlying problem than incarceration. And he returned the property he had stolen, and the victim did not want him to face charges.
We review the district courts revocation of an offenders probation for an abuse of discretion. State v. Coleman, 311 Kan. 332, 334, 460 P.3d 828 (2020). The district courts decision to revoke an offenders probation and order the offender to serve the underlying sentence must be exercised within the statutory framework of K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3716. A district court abuses its discretion when it does not follow the procedure set out in K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3716. See State v. Wilson, 314 Kan. 517, 523-24, 501 P.3d 885 (2022).
Under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3716(c), the district court may revoke an offenders probation after the offender has received at least one two- or three-day jail sanction or if the court finds an exception to the intermediate sanctioning scheme. The exceptions permit the court to revoke probation without having previously imposed a sanction if the court finds and sets forth with particularity the reasons for finding that the safety of members of the public would be jeopardized, the probation was originally granted as the result of a dispositional departure, or the offender committed a new felony or misdemeanor while on probation. K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3716(c)(7)(A)-(C).
Once a probation violation and an exception to the intermediate sanction requirement are established, the district court has discretion to determine whether to continue the probation or to revoke and require the offender to serve the underlying prison sentence. See State v. Brown, 51 Kan. App. 2d 876, 879-80, 357 P.3d 296 (2015).
We find no error of law or fact. The district court had the statutory authority to revoke Singletarys probation because he committed a new crime and because his original sentence was the result of a dispositional departure. Also, a reasonable person could agree with the district courts decision to revoke Singletarys probation. The court had heard Singletarys excuse before. Singletarys explanation for having committed the underlying crime was his lack of access to his medication. He said at that time he would never do it again. But he continued to have the same problems with his medication and again committed burglary in response. The courts revocation of his probation was a reasonable response.
Affirmed.
Per Curiam: