Opinion
112,970.
07-17-2015
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Roberto F. BELTRAN, a/k/a Roberto Beltran–Sotelo, Appellant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Roberto F. Beltran appeals the district court's decision revoking his post-imprisonment supervision following his conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). We granted Beltran's motion for summary disposition in lieu of briefs pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 66). The State filed a response and requested that the district court's judgment be affirmed.
On September 12, 2013, Beltran pled guilty to one count of DUI, fourth offense, and one count of driving while suspended. On October 9, 2013, the district court imposed a controlling sentence of 90 days in jail followed by 12 months' post-imprisonment supervision and statutory fines.
The State subsequently filed a warrant alleging that Beltran violated the conditions of his post-imprisonment supervision by committing several new offenses including child endangerment, destruction of property, domestic violence, and transporting an open container as alleged in several police incident reports. At a hearing on November 5, 2014, Beltran did not contest the new charges. The district court revoked Beltran's post-imprisonment supervision and ordered him to serve the remainder of his supervision term in jail. Beltran timely appealed the district court's judgment.
On appeal, Beltran argues that the district court erred by revoking his post-imprisonment supervision and ordering him to serve the remainder of the supervision term in jail. K.S.A.2014 Supp. 8–1567(b)(3) requires the district court to impose a mandatory 1–year period of post-imprisonment supervision on a fourth DUI conviction. Beltran acknowledges that “[a]ny violation of the conditions of such supervision may subject such person to revocation of supervision and imprisonment in jail for the remainder of the period of imprisonment, the remainder of the supervision period, or any combination or portion thereof.” See K.S.A.2014 Supp. 8–1567(b)(3).
Beltran further acknowledges that once a defendant admits to violating the terms of his or her probation, the district court has discretion to revoke probation. See State v. Gumfory, 281 Kan. 1168, 1170, 135 P.3d 1191 (2006). 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). The party asserting the district court abused its discretion bears the burden of showing such abuse of discretion. State v. Stafford, 296 Kan. 25, 45, 290 P.3d 562 (2012).
Here, Beltran did not contest the new charges filed against him during his period of post-imprisonment supervision. Post-imprisonment supervision for a DUI conviction is akin to probation, and once Beltran did not contest the new charges, it was within the district court's discretion to revoke the post-imprisonment supervision. Beltran fails to establish that the district court's decision to revoke his post-imprisonment supervision was arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, and he makes no claim that the decision was based on an error of law or fact. See Ward, 292 Kan. at 550. Based on our review of the record, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Beltran's post-imprisonment supervision and ordering him to serve the remainder of the supervision term in jail.
Affirmed.