State v. Alexander

1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

Nos. 115,788
115,789

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM JAMAL ALEXANDER,
Appellant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Reno District Court; JOSEPH L. MCCARVILLE III, judge. Opinion filed December 16,
2016. Affirmed.

Submitted for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6820(g) and (h).

Before MALONE, C.J., PIERRON and BRUNS, JJ.

Per Curiam: William Jamal Alexander appeals the district court's decision
revoking his probation in two separate cases and ordering him to serve his underlying
prison sentences. We granted Alexander's motion for summary disposition in lieu of
briefs pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 67). The State
has filed no response.

In 13CR612, Alexander was convicted of one count of felony theft and one count
of fleeing and eluding a law enforcement officer. The district court imposed a controlling
sentence of 12 months' imprisonment but granted probation with community corrections
for 12 months. In 14CR224, Alexander was convicted of one count of burglary of a
2

dwelling. The district court sentenced Alexander to 18 months' imprisonment but granted
probation with community corrections for 12 months.

At a hearing on January 21, 2016, the district court found that Alexander had
violated the conditions of his probation by committing a new felony. The district court
revoked Alexander's probation in each case and ordered him to serve his underlying
prison sentences. Alexander timely appealed.

On appeal, Alexander argues that the district court erred "by revoking probation
and ordering execution of the underlying sentence." Alexander acknowledges that the
decision to revoke probation rests within the district court's sound discretion.

Probation from service of a sentence is an act of grace by the sentencing judge
and, unless otherwise required by law, is granted as a privilege, not as a matter of right.
State v. Gary, 282 Kan. 232, 237, 144 P.3d 634 (2006). Once the State has proven a
violation of the conditions of probation, probation revocation is within the sound
discretion of the district court. State v. Graham, 272 Kan. 2, 4, 30 P.3d 310 (2001). A
judicial action constitutes an abuse of discretion if the action (1) is arbitrary, fanciful, or
unreasonable; (2) is based on an error of law; or (3) is based on an error of fact. State v.
Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 550, 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 (2012). 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).

As Alexander acknowledges, K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 22-3716(c)(8) provides that if the
offender commits a new felony or misdemeanor while on probation, the district court
may revoke probation without having previously imposed an intermediate sanction.
Because Alexander committed a new felony while on probation, the district court was not
required to consider an intermediate sanction before revoking Alexander's probation. The
district court's decision to revoke Alexander's probation was not arbitrary, fanciful, or
3

unreasonable, and the decision was not based on an error of law or fact. See Ward, 292
Kan. at 550. Thus, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking
Alexander's probation and ordering him to serve his underlying prison sentences.

Affirmed.