State v. Henderson

1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 120,849

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY GENE HENDERSON,
Appellant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from McPherson District Court; JOHN B. KLENDA, judge. Opinion filed October 4, 2019.
Affirmed.

Hope E. Faflick Reynolds, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.

Amanda G. Voth, chief deputy county attorney, Gregory T. Benefiel, county attorney, and Derek
Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.

Before SCHROEDER, P.J., PIERRON and STANDRIDGE, JJ.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed under Supreme Court Rule 7.042(b)(4), (5), and (6) (2019
Kan. S. Ct. R. 48). We affirm the district court's decision to impose a 180-day prison
sanction for Anthony Henderson's probation violations and extend his probation one year.
Our review of the record shows the district court's factual findings are supported by clear
and convincing evidence and its findings of fact and legal conclusions adequately explain
its decision. We further hold the district court did not abuse its discretion.

At sentencing, the district court granted Henderson's motion for a downward
dispositional departure to probation from presumptive imprisonment. Henderson initially
2

violated his probation shortly after completing his court-ordered inpatient treatment
program and the district court ordered him to serve a two-day "quick dip" jail sanction
pursuant to K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3716(c)(1)(B). After the quick dip, Henderson did not
learn his lesson and again violated the conditions of his probation in November 2018.
The State filed another motion to revoke his probation. At the revocation hearing, the
court determined Henderson violated his probation, extended his probation for one year,
and ordered him to serve a 180-day prison sanction pursuant to K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-
3716(c)(1)(D).

Henderson argues the district court abused its discretion. He does not dispute the
district court's finding he violated his probation, and he does not allege an error of fact or
law. Rather, Henderson asserts the district court's decision was unreasonable. But
Henderson has not supported his argument with citation to pertinent authority, and he has
failed to show that no reasonable person would agree with the district court's decision.
Upon review of the record, we find no abuse of discretion. See K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-
3716(c)(1)(D) (on subsequent probation violation, district court may impose a 180-day
prison sanction if the violator had a prior sanction imposed under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-
3716[c][1][B]); see also K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3716(c)(9)(B) (the district court may
bypass the intermediate sanctions listed in K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3716[c][1][B]-[D] and
revoke probation pursuant to K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3716[c][9][B] if the district court
granted a dispositional departure at sentencing); K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3716(c)(1)(E)
(upon revocation of probation, district court may require the defendant "to serve the
sentence imposed, or any lesser sentence"); State v. Kurtz, 51 Kan. App. 2d 50, 56, 340
P.3d 509 (2014) (district court must apply the version of K.S.A. 22-3716 in effect when
the defendant violated probation). Under these facts, a reasonable person could easily
conclude the 180-day prison sanction was appropriate.

Affirmed.