Opinion
111,482.
10-17-2014
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Tyler M. KIRKHART, Appellant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Tyler M. Kirkhart appeals the district court's refusal to modify his underlying sentence to run concurrently with his sentences in two other cases. We granted Kirkhart's motion for summary disposition in lieu of briefs pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 63). Because we lack jurisdiction over a challenge to a presumptive sentence, we must dismiss Kirkhart's appeal.
Factual and Procedural History
Kirkhart pleaded guilty to one count of burglary and one count of theft. He was sentenced to a presumptive prison term of 25 months, but granted a dispositional departure to probation for 24 months. His sentence was to be consecutive to his sentences in two other cases, Nos. 10 CR 2899 and 11 CR 127.
Kirkhart's probation was revoked, reinstated, and extended on three separate occasions. On the third occasion he was told by the judge that it would be his last chance. The final probation revocation motion resulted in a warrant for Kirkhart's arrest when, among other violations, he left the community corrections residential center where he had been placed as a condition of probation and did not return. This resulted in a new criminal charge of aggravated escape from custody, to which he pleaded guilty. Subsequently, he stipulated that he violated his probation. He asked the district court to modify his sentence to run concurrent with his sentences in cases 10 CR 2899 and 11 CR 127. The district court denied his request and sentenced him to the underlying 25–month prison term to run consecutive to his sentences in 10 CR 2899 and 11 CR 127, as originally ordered.
Kirkhart filed a timely notice of appeal.
Analysis
Kirkhart appeals the district court's denial of his motion to modify his sentence.
An appellate court is prohibited from reviewing a sentence for a felony conviction that is (1) within the presumptive guidelines sentence for the crime or (2) the result of a plea agreement between the State and the defendant which the district court approved on the record. K.S.A.2013 Supp. 21–6820(c) ; see State v. Sprung, 294 Kan. 300, 317, 277 P.3d 1100 (2012) (appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review challenges to presumptive sentences). Here, Kirkhart's sentence fell within the presumptive guidelines sentence and was the result of a plea agreement between the State and Kirkhart which the district court approved on the record. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider Kirkhart's appeal.
Dismissed.