State v. Peters

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 117,859

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee,

v.

NATASHA D. PETERS,
Appellant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; JEFFREY E. GOERING, judge. Opinion filed December 22,
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.

PER CURIAM: Natasha Peters appeals the district court's decision revoking her
probation and ordering her to serve her underlying prison sentence. Peters contends the
district court should've given her another chance at probation rather than send her to
prison.

But Peters admitted to the district court that she committed nine new criminal
offenses while on probation. These new offenses gave the district court the discretion to
send her to prison. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to do so.

Peters was charged with one count of identity theft and two counts of forgery in
August 2015. As part of a plea deal, Peters pleaded guilty to two counts of forgery, and
2

the State dismissed the charge of identity theft. In July 2016 Peters was sentenced to an
18-month term of probation, with an underlying sentence of 15 months that she would
have to serve if she didn't successfully complete her probation.

In October 2016 Peters was charged with violating her probation. The State
asserted that Peters failed to get a mandatory drug-and-alcohol evaluation, failed to
submit to a drug-screening test, missed meetings with her court-services officer, and
failed to pay restitution. The State also alleged that Peters committed several new
offenses while on probation—aggravated escape, battery of a law enforcement officer,
criminal damage to property, battery, theft, driving while suspended, failure to have
insurance, interference with a law-enforcement officer, and identify theft. Peters admitted
to all the violations. The court revoked her probation and ordered her to serve a modified
prison sentence of 7 months (in place of the initial 15-month sentence). Peters argues that
the court should've put her back on probation.

Once a probation violation has been established, the decision to revoke probation
has traditionally been considered within the discretion of the district court. See State v.
Skolaut, 286 Kan. 219, 227-28, 182 P.3d 1231 (2008). That discretion is now limited by
K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22-3716, which generally requires the court to use intermediate
sanctions (like a short stay in jail) before imposing the prison term for probation
violations.

But that statute's provision requiring intermediate sanctions before ordering the
defendant to serve the underlying prison sentence doesn't apply once the court finds that
the defendant has committed a new offense. See K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22-3716(c)(8). Peters
didn't just commit one new offense—she committed many. Accordingly, we review the
district court's decision in Peters' case only for abuse of discretion. Unless the court has
made a legal or factual error, we may find an abuse of discretion only when no
3

reasonable person would agree with the decision made by the trial court. State v. Ward,
292 Kan. 541, 550, 256 P.3d 801 (2011).

We find nothing unreasonable about the district court's decision here. While on
probation, Peters committed nine new offenses and failed to comply with her probation
terms in several other important respects. A reasonable person could agree with the
district court's decision to impose the prison sentence.

On Peters' 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 Peters' probation.

The district court's judgment is therefore affirmed.