State v. Warren

1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

Nos. 116,344
116,613

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee,

v.

STEPHEN E. WARREN,
Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Reno District Court; JOSEPH L. MCCARVILLE III, judge. Opinion filed April 7, 2017.
Affirmed.

Submitted by the parties 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: Stephen E. Warren appeals the district court's decision to revoke and
extend his probation. We granted Warren's motion for summary disposition pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 48). The State did not file a response.
After review, we affirm the district court.

In May 2014, Warren pled no contest to three counts of theft with two or three
prior convictions. The district court sentenced him to 12 months' probation with an
underlying 7-month prison sentence. In August 2014, Warren pled guilty to possession of
methamphetamine. The district court sentenced him to mandatory drug treatment for up
2

to 18 months with an underlying 20-month prison sentence. In January 2015, Warren
waived his right to a revocation hearing and agreed to a 3-day jail sanction. In June 2015,
Warren voluntarily extended his probation for 12 months in his first case. In August
2015, the State filed a motion for revocation. Warren stipulated to the violations. The
district court revoked Warren's probation and ordered him to 60 days' house arrest
followed by probation reinstatement for 12 months.

In April 2016, the State again moved to revoke Warren's probation. Warren
stipulated to failing to report and testing positive for methamphetamine. The district court
imposed a 60-day jail sanction, allowing Warren to be released early to enter inpatient
drug treatment or complete drug court, followed by probation reinstatement for 24
months. The district court also ordered Warren to apply for drug court and complete the
program if accepted.

On appeal, Warren argues that the district court abused its discretion by revoking
his probation and extending it for 24 months because a reasonable person would have
imposed a lesser sanction, such as a short dip in county jail. But his stipulation that he
failed to report and tested positive for methamphetamine gave the district court discretion
to revoke his probation. See State v. Gumfory, 281 Kan. 1168, Syl. ¶ 1, 135 P.3d 1191
(2006) (district court has discretion to revoke defendant's probation if defendant has
violated his or her probation). Because a reasonable person could have taken the same
position, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking
Warren's probation and imposing the current sanctions. See State v. Robertson, 279 Kan.
291, 308, 109 P.3d 1174 (2005).

Affirmed.