State v. Hundley

1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 113,617

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee,

v.


JARED MICHAEL HUNDLEY,
Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Shawnee District Court; NANCY E. PARRISH, judge. Opinion filed April 1, 2016.
Affirmed.

Ryan J. Eddinger, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.

Jodi Litfin, assistant district attorney, Chadwick J. Taylor, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt,
attorney general, for appellee.

Before MALONE, C.J., MCANANY and POWELL, JJ.

Per Curiam: In line with his plea agreement with the State, Jared Michael
Hundley pled guilty to two counts of aggravated battery in exchange for the State
dismissing other counts. The district court sentenced Hundley to 24 months of supervised
probation with an underlying 12-month prison term. Just 1 week after being sentenced
Hundley tested positive for marijuana and methamphetamines. He received a "Quick-
Dip" sanction for this violation. Following another violation, he received a second
"Quick-Dip" sanction.

2

The State later filed the instant motion to revoke Hundley's probation. Hundley
admitted to the court that he had violated the requirements of his probation by failing to
maintain contact with his probation officer, failing to report as directed, failing to remain
drug free, and failing to complete the required programs. The State requested that the
district court impose a 120-day sanction, noting Hundley's two previous "Quick-Dip"
sanctions and asserting that a 120-day sanction was the next step in the graduated
sanctions.

Hundley requested a lesser jail-time sanction. The district court rejected this
request and imposed a 120-day sanction pursuant to K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 22-3716(c)(1)(C).
Upon his release, the district court ordered that Hundley be supervised by community
corrections and be required to complete a drug/alcohol evaluation.

Hundley appeals. He claims that the district court abused its discretion in imposing
the 120-day sanction rather than the shorter term he requested. Hundley asserts the
district court lacked a reasonable basis for imposing the longer sanction when Hundley
explained that he had withheld information concerning his drug addiction and blamed the
addiction issues as the cause of his failure to comply with the terms of probation.

Probation is a privilege and not a matter of right. State v. Gary, 282 Kan. 232, 237,
144 P.3d 634 (2006). Once Hundley stipulated to violating the terms of his probation, the
disposition decision was within the district court's sound discretion. State v. Skolaut, 286
Kan. 219, 227-28, 182 P.3d 1231 (2008). The court abuses its discretion when its judicial
action is (1) arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable; (2) based on an error of law; or (3) based
on an error of fact. Fischer v. State, 296 Kan. 808, Syl. ¶ 8, 295 P.3d 560 (2013).
Hundley bears the burden to show an abuse of discretion. See State v. Burnett, 300 Kan.
419, 449, 329 P.3d 1169 (2014).

3

We have unlimited review in considering whether the district court correctly
followed the mandates provided by the legislature in K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 22-3716(c). See
State v. Riojas, 288 Kan. 379, Syl. ¶ 7, 204 P.3d 578 (2009).

K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 22-3716(c) provides that a sentencing court should generally
impose an intermediate sanction before ordering a probation violator to serve the
underlying sentence, subject to specific exceptions.

● First, as an intermediate sanction, the district court may impose confinement in
jail for not more than 6 days per month in 2-day or 3-day consecutive periods, not to
exceed a total of 18 days. K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 22-3716(c)(1)(B).

● Second, the district court may remand the defendant to the custody of the
secretary of corrections for 120 days, subject to a reduction of up to 60 days in the
discretion of the secretary of corrections, if the district court previously imposed a
"Quick-Dip" sanction under K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 22-3716(c)(1)(B). See K.S.A. 2015 Supp.
22-3716(c)(1)(C).

● Third, the district court may remand the defendant to the custody of the
secretary of corrections for 180 days, subject to a reduction of up to 90 days in the
discretion of the secretary, if the district court has previously imposed a sanction under
K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 22-3716(c)(1)(B) or (c)(1)(C).

● Fourth, the district court may revoke the defendant's probation and require the
defendant to serve the underlying sentence or a lesser sentence as modified if the district
court has previously imposed a sanction under K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 22-3716(c)(1)(C) or
(c)(1)(D).

4

Hundley does not claim there was any errors of fact or law in the district court's
decision. He asserts the district court lacked a reasonable basis for imposing the sanction
because he had not been forthcoming at sentencing about his addiction issues. But the
district court addressed Hundley's addiction issues by ordering that he complete a
drug/alcohol evaluation upon his release. The district court noted that Hundley had been
given multiple opportunities to comply with the terms of his probation and had not taken
his probation seriously despite being given two previous "Quick-Dip" sanctions under
K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 22-3716(c)(1)(B).

Here, the district court followed the mandates provided for in K.S.A. 2015 Supp.
22-3716(c) and imposed the appropriate 120-day graduated sanction. Hundley fails to
convince us that no reasonable judge would have imposed a 120-day graduated sanction
rather than a shorter sanction. The district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering
Hundley to serve a 120-day graduated sanction.

Affirmed.