Opinion
No. 108,514.
2013-10-11
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Shrone W. LANDRUM, Appellant.
Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; J. Patrick Walters, Judge. Sean M.A. Hatfield and Carl F.A. Maughan, of Maughan & Maughan LC, of Wichita, for appellant. Julie A. Koon, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.
Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; J. Patrick Walters, Judge.
Sean M.A. Hatfield and Carl F.A. Maughan, of Maughan & Maughan LC, of Wichita, for appellant. Julie A. Koon, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.
Before MALONE, C.J., PIERRON and HILL, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Shrone Landrum appeals the revocation of his probation, claiming there was insufficient evidence presented by the State that he drove a car in violation of his probation terms. Because we will not reweigh evidence on appeal, we affirm the district court's ruling.
Convicted of possession of cocaine, possession of marijuana after a prior conviction, and possession of methamphetamine, Landrum received a suspended prison sentence and the court placed him on probation with an underlying sentence of 36 months' imprisonment. Landrum had to comply with various requirements of probation, including not breaking the law.
In less than a month of being placed on probation, the State claimed Landrum committed the crimes of driving while under the influence, driving while under the influence with a child under the age of 14, refusing a preliminary breath test, and driving on a revoked license. The State also alleged Landrum consumed alcohol and failed to submit truthful and accurate reports to his probation officer.
The State called four witnesses at the probation revocation hearing. Officer Justin Cole testified he reported to the scene of a car accident in May 2012. Officers at the scene directed Cole to Landrum, who they believed was the driver of an involved vehicle. This belief was based upon reports from witnesses who saw Landrum get out of the car. When Cole made contact with Landrum, he observed that Landrum had been drinking. Cole noticed that Landrum was swaying, his eyes were bloodshot and watery, and there was an odor of alcohol coming from his breath. Cole said Landrum told him he had recently consumed a bottle of vodka. Landrum subsequently performed and failed field sobriety tests. When Cole made contact with other people who were present at the scene of the accident, including someone named Devin Jamison, they advised Cole that Landrum had been the driver of the vehicle.
Scot Green, Landrum's probation officer, testified he filed the warrant for Landrum based on the events described above. Green spoke in particular about Landrum's failure to submit truthful and accurate reports to him. Green said that when Landrum called to tell him he was involved in a car accident, Landrum said Jamison was the driver. Landrum also told Green that Jamison and another passenger ran from the scene of the accident, which was inconsistent with the police report Green had already received. Landrum told Green he was unsure why he was arrested for DUI because he was not driving or drinking. Green testified that his basis for issuing the warrant was that Landrum's report differed from the police report.
The State's other two witnesses were Tanisha Jackson and Jamison. Jackson, whose vehicle was hit during the accident, testified she did not see the driver of the other vehicle. At the hearing, Jackson was unable to identify Landrum as the driver. Jamison, who was a passenger in the vehicle driven by Landrum, testified that he did not remember if he told Cole that Landrum was the driver. Landrum admitted he was in the vehicle, but testified that another “homeboy” was the driver—although he was unable to identify this alleged driver by name.
After hearing this testimony, the district court found the State's witnesses more credible and concluded Landrum violated the conditions of his probation. Accordingly, the court revoked Landrum's probation and ordered him to serve his prison sentence.
To us, Landrum points out that none of the witnesses at the hearing were able to conclusively identify him as the driver, and he says there were “two conflicting versions” of the event. In his view, there was insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that he was driving the vehicle and the district court therefore abused its discretion by revoking his probation.
We do not agree.
Basically, Landrum is essentially asking us to reweigh the evidence and find his version of the facts more credible than that provided by the officer and his probation officer. The district court found their testimony more credible, and there was clearly sufficient evidence—based on their testimony—to establish that Landrum violated his probation as alleged. On review, this court does not reweigh the credibility of the witnesses or conflicting evidence, and all questions of credibility are resolved in favor of the State. State v. Moore, 269 Kan. 27, 30, 4 P.3d 1141 (2000). Thus, we conclude Landrum's argument lacks merit.
As it has often been said, probation is a matter of grace and is a privilege, not a fundamental right. State v. DeCourcy, 224 Kan. 278, 280, 580 P.2d 86 (1978). The State bears the burden of establishing a violation of probation before the district court. K.S.A.2011 Supp. 22–3716(b). Once it has been established that a probationer has violated the conditions of his or her probation, revocation or an extension of probation falls within the sound discretion of the district court. See State v. Graham, 272 Kan. 2, 5, 30 P.3d 310 (2001). Thus, an appellate court reviews a district court's decision to revoke or extend probation under an abuse of discretion standard. See State v. Gumfory, 281 Kan. 1168, 1170, 135 P.3d 1191 (2006). An abuse of discretion occurs when the action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. In other words, a district court abuses its discretion only if no reasonable person would have taken the action of the trial court. State v. Sellers, 292 Kan. 117, 124, 253 P.3d 20 (2011).
The record contains evidence that Landrum failed to abide by the conditions of his probation by consuming alcohol, violating the law, and providing his probation officer with an inaccurate explanation as to what occurred during and after the car accident. The court was justified in revoking Landrum's probation on this basis. A district court is not required to give a defendant a second chance at probation—particularly here, where Landrum violated probation in less than a month after it was imposed. As such, it cannot be said that no reasonable person would find as the district court did in this case. We therefore conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion when revoking Landrum's probation.
Affirmed.