Opinion
No. 107,327.
2012-06-29
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Timothy J. SCHROCK, Appellant.
Appeal from McPherson District Court; Carl B. Anderson, JR., Judge.
Submitted for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 21–4721(g) and (h).
Before GREENE, C.J., McANANY and BRUNS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Timothy Schrock appeals the district court's revocation of his probation, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by not adequately considering his circumstances. We granted Schrock's motion for summary disposition of a sentencing appeal pursuant to K.S.A. 21–4721(g) and (h) and Supreme Court Rule 7.041a (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 59). We conclude there was no abuse of discretion and thus affirm the district court's revocation of probation.
In February 2012, Schrock pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine, a level 4 drug felony, in exchange for the dismissal of two related counts of drug offenses. The district court then sentenced him to 15 months' incarceration, but granted probation for mandatory drug treatment for up to 18 months.
In July 2011, the State filed a motion to revoke Schrock's probation, alleging a host of sanctioned and unsanctioned probation violations, including no-shows at treatment, admitted use of methamphetamine, failure to complete community service work, and unsuccessful discharge from treatment.
Schrock did not contest the allegations of probation violations, but sought “one more opportunity to try to comply with the terms of probation and to try to get back into treatment and take care of the addictions that he has.” After hearing from counsel and Schrock, the district court stated that it “looks like we have bent over backward to try to work with Mr. Schrock” but it could not “go any further with him.” The court revoked Schrock's probation and remanded him to the custody of the Secretary of Corrections.
Probation from service of a sentence is an act of grace by the sentencing judge and, unless otherwise required by law, is granted as a privilege, not as a matter of right. State v. Gary, 282 Kan. 232, 237, 144 P.3d 634 (2006). Once the State has proven a violation of the conditions of probation, probation revocation is within the sound discretion of the district court. State v. Graham, 272 Kan. 2, 4, 30 P.3d 310 (2001). Judicial discretion is abused when judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. If reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion. State v. Gant, 288 Kan. 76, 81–82, 201 P.3d 673 (2009).
We conclude that the record of appeal clearly supports the district court's decision to revoke Schrock's probation. Clearly, the laundry list of 14 sanctioned violations and 21 unsanctioned violations supported revocation. We cannot say that no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the district court. The district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Schrock's probation and ordering him to serve the balance of his sentence.
Affirmed.