Opinion
No. 108,838.
2013-07-5
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Michael Anthony EVANS, Appellant.
Appeal from Ford District Court; Van Z. Hampton, Judge.
Submitted by the parties for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A.2012 Supp. 21–6820(g) and (h).
Before HILL, P.J., POWELL, J., and HEBERT, S.J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
As a result of a plea bargain, Michael Anthony Evans pled no contest to one count of blackmail in 2010. At sentencing, the district court granted a downward dispositional departure and placed him on probation. The court imposed an underlying prison sentence of 29 months. Evans was ordered to comply with all conditions of probation.
In 2011, the State of Kansas moved for an order revoking Evans' probation, claiming Evans had failed to comply with the probation conditions. Specifically, the State alleged Evans failed to:
• report to a scheduled visit with his probation officer;
• provide a urine sample;
• pay program fees;
• pay court costs and fines;
• refrain from alcohol use; and
• maintain full-time employment.
At a hearing on the matter, Evans admitted to violating the conditions of his probation as alleged by the State. Evans specifically admitted to failing to report to his probation officer, leaving the state without reporting, incurring a domestic battery charge while on probation, and failing to pay child support. Evans explained that he suffers from depression and has thoughts of harming himself. Evans told the court that if it allowed him to stay on probation, he would stay away from negative people and work to support himself and his children.
The district court revoked Evans' probation and ordered that he serve his original sentence. The court explained this was due to Evans' extensive criminal history and the court's belief that Evans needed mental health counseling, which would be available to him in prison.
In this appeal, Evans claims the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation but sets forth no specific arguments to support his position on this point.
Once there has been evidence of a violation of the conditions of probation, revocation is in the sound discretion of the district court. State v. Graham, 272 Kan. 2, 4, 30 P.3d 310 (2001). Judicial discretion is abused only when no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. Varney Business Services, Inc. v. Pottroff, 275 Kan. 20, 44, 59 P.3d 1003 (2002).
At his revocation hearing, Evans admitted to violating several terms of his probation and offered no substantial reason for his violations. Indeed, Evans has an extensive criminal history—including 2 person felonies, 3 person misdemeanors, and 33 nonperson misdemeanors. In these circumstances, we cannot say that no reasonable person would have taken the position adopted by the district court. The district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Evans' probation.
Affirmed.