Opinion
112,653 112,654.
04-17-2015
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Jaylyn M. BRADLEY, Appellant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Jaylyn M. Bradley appeals the district court's decision revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his underlying sentences in two cases. We granted Bradley'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.
In 13CR1050, Bradley pled guilty to one count of aggravated battery. On September 9, 2013, the district court sentenced Bradley to 31 months' imprisonment but granted a dispositional departure to probation with community corrections for 24 months. In 13CR1128, Bradley pled guilty to one count of aggravated robbery. On September 9, 2013, the district court sentenced Bradley to 31 months' imprisonment but granted a dispositional departure to probation with community corrections for 24 months. The district court ordered the sentences in the two cases to run consecutively. Bradley did not appeal his sentences.
On January 24, 2014, a probation violation warrant was filed in each case alleging that Bradley violated his curfew, that he committed the offense of driving on a suspended license, that he went to a location where he had been told not to go, and that he failed to maintain full-time employment. At a hearing on February 28, 2014, Bradley admitted to violating his probation but argued there were mitigating circumstances. Bradley requested that his probation be reinstated, but the district court revoked Bradley's probation and ordered him to serve his underlying prison sentences. Bradley timely appealed the probation revocation. The two cases have been consolidated on appeal.
On appeal, Bradley alleges his probation violations were outweighed by mitigating factors. He argues that he demonstrated that he could succeed on probation and the district court erred by imposing the underlying sentences.
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). 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, the district court granted a dispositional departure when it placed Bradley on probation. In revoking Bradley's probation, the judge stated:
“First of all, the underlying offenses here are extremely serious ones. Attempted robbery, aggravated battery. You were presumptive prison. You have violated your probation. You were given—you were given some sanctions, kind of in defiance of my order that that wasn't to happen, and then yet you had more probation violations.”
Based on the record, the district court's decision to revoke Bradley's probation was not arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, and the decision was not based on an error of law or fact. See Ward, 292 Kan. at 550. Thus, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Bradley's probation and ordering him to serve his underlying prison sentences.
Affirmed.