LEBEN

Appeal from Barton District Court; Hannelore Kitts, Judge.
Submitted by the parties for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 21–4721(g) and (h).
Before LEBEN, P.J., ATCHESON, J., and BUKATY, S.J.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

LEBEN, J.

Albert Emil Hass received probation following his conviction for two counts of making a criminal threat and one count of residential burglary. On probation, Hass violated several of his probation conditions: He failed to enter drug-treatment programs, continued to use drugs, and repeatedly failed to report to his supervising officer. The district court revoked Hass' probation and ordered him to serve his original sentence of 28 months in prison.

Hass appeals. But it's within the court's discretion to revoke probation once a violation has been established. We find no abuse of discretion in revoking Hass' probation on these facts.

In September 2009, Hass was charged with aggravated burglary, criminal damage, and several counts of battery and making criminal threats after a domestic incident in which he barged into a house, assaulted several people, and damaged some property. In a plea agreement with the State, Hass agreed to plead guilty to two counts of criminal threat and one count of residential burglary. Hass entered his guilty plea to the three charges at a hearing on December 11, 2009. In February 2010, Hass was sentenced to 28 months in prison and 12 months of postrelease supervision. But the court suspended his sentence and imposed a probation term of 24 months. The court ordered Hass to pay $580 in restitution and to reimburse the State for the cost of his court-appointed attorneys.

In April 2010, the State alleged that Hass violated his probation. At a probation-revocation hearing the next month, Hass admitted to ingesting marijuana and consuming alcohol, as well as failing to report on two occasions in March 2010. He had also been charged with a new criminal-damage offense. The district court revoked and reinstated Hass' probation, ordering him to serve a 60–day jail sanction, to undergo an alcohol and drug evaluation and complete all recommendations, and to undergo a mental-health evaluation.

In November 2010, the State again alleged that Hass had violated his probation. At his second probation-revocation hearing in December 2010, Hass admitted that he had failed to report and had not entered the recommended inpatient drug-treatment program. The court again revoked and reinstated Hass' probation, ordering him to serve another 60–day jail sanction and pay attorney fees in addition to completing the drug-treatment recommendations.

At a third probation-revocation hearing on April 22, 2011, following further allegations by the State, Hass once again admitted to violating his probation. Hass had again failed to enter the recommended inpatient drug treatment and had left his reported residence without giving his probation officer notice of the change. In addition, he had made no payments toward restitution or other court-ordered fees since being placed on supervision in February 2010; his probation orders had required that he make monthly payments as directed by his probation officer. Once again, the district court gave Hass another chance: The court revoked and reinstated Hass' probation—extending it by 6 months—and imposed a 60–day jail sanction and more drug-treatment requirements under intensive supervision. The district court told Hass that this would be his last chance at probation and that if he violated the conditions again, his probation would be revoked.

But Hass again violated his probation. At a February 2012 hearing on new probation-violation allegations brought by the State, Hass again admitted to violating his probation in a number of ways: failing to report, failing to maintain employment, failing to go to a drug-treatment program, and using marijuana and methamphetamine. The State argued that Hass had a history of absconding from supervision and was not a good candidate for continued probation. Hass responded that he was in a better situation to comply with probation conditions because he was on a new medication, was involved in a new relationship, and had a supportive living situation. Hass asked the court to reinstate his probation. The district court agreed with the State that Hass had a history of violating his probation, so the court revoked Hass' probation and ordered him to serve his original sentence.

Hass appeals, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in revoking his probation because Hass' living situation had changed, giving him a better chance of doing well on probation. The State counters that the court did not abuse its discretion because Hass admitted to violating his probation and had been before the district court on allegations of probation violations on four separate occasions. Additionally, the State points out the district court's finding that Hass had a habit of absconding from supervision.

The legal rules applicable to this appeal are straightforward. A district court's decision to revoke probation must be based on a factual finding that a condition of probation has been violated. Once a violation has been established, the decision to revoke probation is within the discretion of the district court. State v.. Skolaut, 286 Kan. 219, 227–28, 182 P.3d 1231 (2008); see State v. Graham, 272 Kan. 2, 4, 30 P.3d 310 (2001). We may find an abuse of discretion only when no reasonable person would agree with the decision made by the district court. State v. Gumfory, 281 Kan. 1168, Syl. ¶ 1, 135 P.3d 1191 (2006).

We find nothing unreasonable about the district court's decision to revoke Hass' probation. The district court reinstated Hass' probation three different times, and Hass was still unable to comply with his probation conditions despite the court's warning that a fourth violation would lead to prison time.

On Hass' motion, we accepted this appeal for summary disposition under K.S.A. 21–4721(g) and (h) and Supreme Court Rule 7.041a (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 60). We have reviewed the record that was available to the sentencing court, and we find no error in its decision to revoke Hass' probation.

The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.