State v. Baker

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 117,174

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee,

v.

JOHN BAKER,
Appellant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Saline District Court; JARED B. JOHNSON, judge. Opinion filed October 6, 2017.
Affirmed.

Submitted for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-6820(g) and (h).

Before MALONE, P.J., LEBEN and POWELL, JJ.

LEBEN, J.: John Baker appeals the district court's decision to revoke his probation
and send him to prison after he violated his probation. He argues that because his
underlying problems were related to drug addiction, the court should have given him
another chance on probation so that he could receive treatment. By sending him instead
to prison, Baker argues that the district court abused its discretion.

Traditionally the district court has had broad discretion in deciding whether to
revoke probation and impose the underlying prison sentence when a defendant violates
probation. See State v. Skolaut, 286 Kan. 219, 227-28, 182 P.3d 1231 (2008); State v.
Graham, 272 Kan. 2, 4, 30 P.3d 310 (2010). That discretion is now limited in felony
cases so that, in most situations, the court must first impose an intermediate sanction,
2

such as a two- or three-day jail stay, for the first probation violation. But there's an
exception if the defendant has committed a new crime; in that case, the court has the
discretion to revoke probation without first imposing an intermediate sanction. See
K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22-3716(b) and (c).

That exception applied in Baker's case. While he was on probation for several
prior offenses (one, aggravated failure to appear, a felony offense), Baker committed the
new crimes of misdemeanor theft and misdemeanor interference with a law-enforcement
officer. He pled guilty to the new offenses, and at a combined hearing in all cases, the
district court sentenced him to jail on the new offenses and revoked his probation in the
earlier cases.

A court abuses its discretion only when its decision is based on a factual or legal
error or when no reasonable person would agree with the decision. State v. McCullough,
293 Kan. 970, 980-81, 270 P.3d 1142 (2012); State v. Gumfory, 281 Kan. 1168, Syl. ¶ 1,
135 P.3d 1191 (2006). Baker hasn't suggested a factual or legal error, and we conclude
that a reasonable person could agree with the district court's decision. As the district court
noted, Baker had failed to report on his probations, thus preventing probation staff from
helping provide services and treatment to him. And while on probation, he committed
new crimes. Those facts provided a reasonable basis for the district court's decision.

On Baker's motion, we accepted this appeal for summary disposition under K.S.A.
2016 Supp. 21-6820(g) and (h) and Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R.
48). We have reviewed the record that was available to the sentencing court, and we find
no error in its decision to revoke Baker's probation.

We affirm the district court's judgment.