Opinion
112,064.
04-24-2015
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Chad R. SHINKLE, Appellant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Defendant Chad Shinkle appeals the Sedgwick County District Court's decision revoking his probation and ordering him to serve a modified prison sentence. We granted Shinkle's motion for summary disposition in lieu of briefs pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041 A (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 66). We affirm.
Shinkle entered into a plea agreement and was convicted of burglary. On July 25, 2013, he was sentenced to a dispositional departure of 24 months' probation, with an underlying 31–month prison term.
On October 7, 2013, the State filed a warrant alleging that Shinkle violated the terms of his probation by driving while his license was suspended and twice failing to report to his supervising officer. The State amended the warrant to include a violation for possession of a controlled substance and paraphernalia.
At the final probation violation hearing, the State withdrew its third allegation of possession of a controlled substance and paraphernalia. Shinkle stipulated to the first and second allegations made against him. The district court revoked Shinkle's probation and ordered him to serve a modified sentence of 18 months' imprisonment. Shinkle filed a timely notice of appeal.
Shinkle asserts that the district court abused its discretion when it revoked his probation and ordered him to serve a modified prison term.
Unless required by law, probation is a privilege and not a matter of right. Once a probation violation has been established, the decision to revoke probation rests within the sound discretion of the district court. State v. Skolaut, 286 Kan. 219, 227–28, 182 P.3d 1231 (2008) ; State v. Graham, 272 Kan. 2, 4, 30 P.3d 310 (2001). A judicial action constitutes an abuse of discretion if the action (1) is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable; (2) is based on an error of law; or (3) is based on an error of fact. State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 550, 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 132 S.Ct. 1594 (2012).
Shinkle chose to admit to the first and second probation violations that the State alleged. Having reviewed the record, we find nothing to suggest the district court abused its discretion when it revoked Shinkle's probation. The district court understood the law and the facts. And we are confident other district court judges would have treated Shinkle comparably or more harshly.
Affirmed.