Opinion
Nos. 111,515 111,516.
2015-03-6
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Tyler FORD, Appellant.
Appeal from Reno District Court; Joseph L. McCarville III, Judge.
Submitted by the parties for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A.2014 Supp. 21–6820(g) and (h).
Before BRUNS, P.J., BUSER and POWELL, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
In this consolidated appeal, Tyler Ford challenges the revocation of his probation in Reno County cases 12 CR 696 and 13 CR 112. We granted Ford's motion for summary disposition pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041 A (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 66). The State did not file a response. After review, we affirm the district court.
On November 9, 2012, the district court granted probation to Ford after convictions on two counts of auto burglary in 12 CR 696. On February 6, 2013, the State moved to revoke Ford's probation because he failed to report to the court services officer 13 times, admitted to marijuana use twice, admitted to methamphetamine use once, was named as a suspect in 2 more auto burglary cases, broke curfew once, and then entirely absconded from supervision. On March 6, 2013, the State amended its motion to add failure to report for inpatient addiction treatment and arrests in cases alleging battery and auto burglary.
Ford pled guilty to two counts of auto burglary and two counts of theft on March 29, 2013, in 13 CR 112. At the same hearing Ford stipulated to the probation violations in 12 CR 696, and the district court imposed a 60–day jail sanction in that case followed by a reinstatement of probation. On June 7, 2013, the district court granted Ford probation in 13 CR 112.
On September 19, 2013, the State moved to revoke probation in both cases because Ford admitted to marijuana use, visited a house where drugs were being used, and was arrested for aggravated battery and three counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. The State amended the motion in January 2014 to add another admitted use of marijuana, several failures to report, submission of false information about employment, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of certain drugs.
Ford appeared before the district court on January 17, 2014, on the State's motions to revoke in 12 CR 696 and 13 CR 112 and for sentencing in a third case, 13 CR 741, after his conviction in that case for aggravated burglary. The district court revoked Ford's probation in the first two cases and sentenced him to prison in the third. The district court ordered the prison sentences to be served concurrently.
Ford now argues the district court abused its discretion by revoking his probation in 12 CR 696 and 13 CR 112. “Once there has been evidence of a violation of the conditions on which probation was granted, the decision to revoke probation rests in the sound discretion of the district court.” State v. Gumfory, 281 Kan. 1168, Syl. ¶ 1, 135 P.3d 1191 (2006). “A district court abuses its discretion when: (1) no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial judge; (2) a ruling is based on an error of law; or (3) substantial competent evidence does not support a finding of fact on which the exercise of discretion is based.” State v. Brown, 300 Kan. 542, 546, 331 P.3d 781 (2014).
Ford alleges he stipulated to multiple “technical” violations of his probation; however, the violations in question were more substantial, and Ford committed a new, more serious crime in 13 CR 741. We have no trouble concluding a reasonable person could agree with the district court that Ford should serve the underlying sentences in 12 CR 696 and 13 CR 112, nor was the decision based on an error of law or fact. The district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Ford's probation.
Affirmed.