Opinion
No. 110,696.
2014-11-14
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. E'lexus C. WILLIAMS, Appellant.
Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; Mark A. Vining, Judge.
Submitted for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A.2013 Supp. 21–6820(g) and (h).
Before ARNOLD–BURGER, P.J., STANDRIDGE and SCHROEDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
E'lexus C. Williams appeals from the district court's order revoking her probation and its order that she serve her underlying prison sentence. We granted Williams' motion for summary disposition without briefing pursuant to K.S.A.2013 Supp. 21–6820(g) and (h) and Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 63).
Williams was charged with one count of voluntary manslaughter. On January 3, 2012, Williams pled guilty to one count of involuntary manslaughter as part of a plea agreement. The district court sentenced her to 36 months' probation with an underlying prison sentence of 34 months.
On September 10, 2012, the district court issued an arrest warrant which contained four alleged probation violations. Specifically, the State alleged that Williams failed to report to her intensive supervision officer (ISO) as directed on two occasions, that she failed to attend a scheduled therapy session, and that she failed to provide documentation of her completed community service hours as directed. At the subsequent evidentiary hearing, Williams' ISO, Crystal Speer, testified as a witness for the State. Speer testified that Williams missed scheduled appointments with her on September 4, 2012, and on September 10, 2012. She also testified that Williams failed to attend mental health therapy appointments on several occasions. Williams admitted to missing appointments with her ISO, missing therapy sessions, and that she did not provide her ISO with documentation of any of the community service hours she claimed to have completed.
After the evidence was presented at the probation revocation hearing, Williams' attorney asserted, among other things, that Williams was a novice in the criminal justice system, that she was attempting to further her education by attending school, and that she had community support at the hearing. Counsel asked the court to give Williams another chance. The district court found that Williams had violated the terms and conditions of her probation. It then revoked her probation and ordered Williams to serve her underlying prison sentence.
Probation from serving a sentence is an act of goodwill 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 there has been evidence of 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). An abuse of discretion only occurs when a judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable; is based on an error of law; or 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).
Here, Williams admitted to violating the conditions of her probation. Therefore, the decision to revoke her probation was within the sound discretion of the district court. There is nothing in the record to suggest the district court's order was arbitrary, fanciful, unreasonable, or erroneous. As a result, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Williams' probation.
Affirmed.