Opinion
No. 108,109.
2013-03-8
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Ryan Shad MILLER, Appellant.
Appeal from Ford District Court; Daniel L. Love, Judge.
Submitted by the parties for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A.2012 Supp. 21–6820(g) and (h).
Before HILL, P.J., ATCHESON and ARNOLD–BURGER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Ryan Shad Miller was convicted of possession of marijuana in March 2011. The district court granted Miller's request for downward durational departure and sentenced him to a prison term of 8 months. The court suspended this sentence and placed Miller on probation for a period of 18 months.
Miller was ordered to comply with various conditions of probation. In August 2011, claiming Miller violated the conditions of probation by admitting to marijuana use, failing to complete a drug treatment program, failing to report for a scheduled visit with his probation officer, and failing to remain current with the program fees, the State moved for an order revoking Miller's probation.
Miller admitted the violations. The district court revoked probation but placed Miller on probation a second time.
In March 2012, the State sought revocation of Miller's probation again. The State alleged Miller tested positive for marijuana use and admitted to its use, failed to remain current with program fees, and failed to complete community service as ordered.
At a hearing on the State's motion, Miller admitted violating the terms of his probation. The district court found Miller indeed violated probation. When the district court advised Miller he could present a statement on his behalf, Miller indicated he was having “difficulties” because he did not have a place to live and said he had not been “thinking clearly about some things.”
As a result, the district court revoked Miller's probation and ordered him to serve his underlying prison sentence. The judge explained:
“Mr. Miller, I like to have alternatives, you know, so I can work different programs. The problem is, you just haven't done anything with any of these programs that we've put you in and you've been here for a probation revocation once before, and I put you back out on the streets with probation and nothing's happening here. Nothing at all is happening. This is a little rare that we see so little happening. I don't see that we're in a position to make this work until you decide that you're gonna make it work and that's just not happening right now.”
On appeal, Miller claims the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation. Even so, Miller sets forth no arguments to support his position on this point.
Once there has been evidence of a violation of the conditions of probation, revocation of probation is in the sound discretion of the district court. State v. Graham, 272 Kan. 2, 4, 30 P.3d 310 (2001). Judicial discretion is abused only when no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. Varney Business Services, Inc. v. Pottroff, 275 Kan. 20, 44, 59 P.3d 1003 (2002).
Here, Miller violated several terms of his probation on more than one occasion, and he stipulated to those violations. The district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Miller's probation.
Affirmed.