Opinion
No. 112297.
2015-03-6
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Brayline Donelle BAKER, Appellant.
Appeal from Johnson District Court; Kevin P. Moriarty, Judge.
Submitted for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A.2013 Supp. 21–6820(g) and (h).
Before MALONE, C.J., McANANY and SCHROEDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Brayline Donelle Baker appeals the district court's revocation of his probation and imposition of his prison sentence. Baker filed a motion for summary disposition of his appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 66). The State responded to Baker's motion, asking this court to affirm the district court's decision to revoke Baker's probation and impose the underlying sentence.
In May 2013, Baker received probation following his convictions for possession of marijuana, criminal possession of a firearm, and interference with a law enforcement officer, with an underlying controlling sentence of 32 months.
In May 2014, Baker stipulated to violating at least one of the terms of his probation by driving with a suspended license. Baker asked the court to reinstate his probation.
Nikki Collins from the probation department recommended that Baker be remanded into custody and placed at the residential center program. Collins testified that Baker had “completely gone backwards” during the past 5 or 6 months. Collins reported that Baker became unemployed, missed appointments, missed UAs, and failed to get a substance abuse evaluation completed. The State argued against the reinstatement of probation, arguing that Baker fell into a border box case and the court previously chose to give him a chance on probation. Further, the new violations showed there was a public safety issue and that Baker should serve his underlying sentence.
The district court revoked Baker's probation, noting that Baker had not been able to go 1 year without getting into trouble.
Baker argues the district court abused its discretion when it revoked his probation and remanded him to serve his prison sentence. Baker provides no reason for his assertion that the district court abused its discretion.
Unless required by law, probation is granted as a privilege and not as a matter of right. State v. Gary, 282 Kan. 232, 237, 144 P.3d 634 (2006). We will not overturn the district court's resulting revocation of Baker's probation absent a finding that the district court abused its discretion. See State v. Gumfory, 281 Kan. 1168, 1170, 135 P.3d 1191 (2006). Judicial discretion is abused when no reasonable person would take the position taken by the district court. 281 Kan. at 1170. The party asserting the district court abused its discretion bears the burden of showing such abuse of discretion. State v. Wells, 289 Kan. 1219, 1226, 221 P.3d 561 (2009).
We find nothing unreasonable about the district court's decision. In light of Baker's stipulation that he violated the terms of his probation and his history of noncompliance, we affirm the district court's action.
Affirmed.