State v. Langdon

1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 113,298

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee,

v.

NICOLE MARIE LANGDON,
Appellant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Shawnee District Court; MARK S. BRAUN, judge. Opinion filed November 20, 2015.
Affirmed.

Caroline Zuschek, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.

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

Before MALONE, C.J., BRUNS, J., and ROBERT W. FAIRCHILD, District Judge, assigned.

Per Curiam: Nicole Marie Langdon pleaded no contest to one count of attempted
aggravated burglary and two counts of forgery pursuant to a plea agreement. The district
court sentenced Langdon to 24 months of intensive supervised probation, with an
underlying sentence of 35 months imprisonment and 12 months postrelease supervision.
Shortly thereafter, Langdon violated the terms of her probation when she committed
another forgery. The district court revoked her probation and imposed a reduced prison
sentence of 24 months with 12 months postrelease supervision. Finding no abuse of
discretion by the district court, we affirm.
2

FACTS

On August 6, 2013, Langdon was charged with one count of aggravated burglary,
two counts of forgery, one count of identity theft, and one count of theft of less than
$1,000. Langdon pleaded no contest to one count of attempted aggravated burglary, and
two counts of forgery pursuant to a plea agreement on May 21, 2014. As part of the
agreement, the State dismissed the identity theft and theft charges.

The district court held a sentencing hearing on August 1, 2014. Before sentencing
Langdon, the district court advised Langdon—who had struggled to uphold the terms of
her bond both before and after she had entered her plea—that if she did as poorly on
probation, she would end up in prison. The district court then placed Langdon on 24
months of intensive supervised probation, with an underlying prison sentence of 35
months and 12 months' postrelease supervision.

On September 10, 2014, the State moved for an order to show cause why
Langdon's probation should not be revoked. The State alleged that Langdon had
committed another forgery. At the revocation hearing, Langdon stipulated to the
probation violation. In revoking Langdon's probation, the district court noted, "I think the
only time Ms. Langdon shows any stability is when she's . . . in custody and asking for a
break." The district court, however, modified Langdon's sentence to 24 months'
imprisonment and 12 months' postrelease supervision.

The district court explained:

"The history that I've seen is I don't think putting you back on probation's going
to help you. I certainly don't think it's going to help the community. I think it's just going
to give you another opportunity to do what you want to do when you want to do it."

Thereafter, Langdon timely filed this appeal.
3

ANALYSIS

A district court's decision to revoke probation involves two components. The
district court must first determine whether the probationer has violated a condition of
probation, and if a probation violation occurred, the district court must determine whether
the violation warrants revocation of probation. State v. Skolaut, 286 Kan. 219, 227, 182
P.3d 1231 (2008). A district court's decision to revoke probation will not be overturned
absent an abuse of discretion. See Skolaut, 286 Kan. at 227-28. A district court abuses its
discretion if its judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable; is based on an error
of law; or is based on an error of fact. State v. Mosher, 299 Kan. 1, 3, 319 P.3d 1253
(2014).

Langdon's only argument on appeal is that the district court abused its discretion
when it revoked her probation because she had stable housing, had a job, had begun
taking medicine for bipolar disorder, and was attending Narcotics Anonymous. Although
this may be true, the record reflects that Langdon violated the conditions of her bond on
multiple occasions between December 9, 2013, and her sentencing on August 1, 2014.
Furthermore, the district court warned Langdon at sentencing: "[I]f I see you on a
probation violation, you're looking probably at a good, lengthy sanction, if not doing time
in prison." Despite this warning, Langdon committed another forgery less than 2 weeks
after being placed on probation.

The district court ultimately found Langdon was only stable while in custody and
asking for a break. Based on a review of the record, we find that a reasonable person
could reach the same conclusion as the district court. We, therefore, conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Langdon's probation.

Affirmed.