Opinion
No. 108,588.
2013-07-19
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Casey V. HOUSER, Appellant.
Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; Jeffrey L. Syrios, Judge.
Submitted by the parties for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A.2012 Supp. 21–6820(g) and (h).
Before BRUNS, P.J., McANANY and SCHROEDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Casey V. Houser appeals the district court's revocation of his probation and the imposition of his underlying prison sentence. Houser moved for summary disposition of this appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2012 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 62). In response, the State did not oppose Houser's motion for summary disposition but asked us to affirm the district court's decision. Thus, we granted leave for this appeal to proceed without briefing.
On February 28, 2012, Houser was charged with 13 counts of burglary and theft. Subsequently, he pleaded guilty to all of the charges. At a sentencing hearing on April 25, 2012, the district court placed Houser on probation with an underlying controlling sentence of 23 months.
A few months later, the State issued two warrants against Houser alleging violations of the terms of his probation. The first warrant alleged that Houser had moved without notifying his probation officer and had failed to report for a scheduled office visit with his probation officer. The second warrant alleged that Houser had been charged with new counts of theft, burglary, and possession of stolen property.
At his probation revocation hearing, Houser admitted to the violations alleged in the first warrant. Likewise, for the purposes of the revocation hearing only, Houser admitted to the violations alleged in the second warrant. Both the prosecutor and the probation officer recommended that Houser's probation be revoked and that he be ordered to serve his underlying sentence. The district court agreed, revoked Houser's probation, and imposed the underlying sentence.
Probation may be revoked if the State carries its burden to show that the probationer more probably than not violated the terms of his or her probation. Once the State has carried its burden, “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 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. denied132 S.Ct. 1594 (2012).
Here, Houser asked the district court for reinstatement of his probation so he could obtain help for an alleged substance abuse problem. But the district court had warned Houser at sentencing that “[t]his is your chance to prove to me and yourself and anybody else ... that you can make some changes.” Unfortunately, Houser failed to comply with the terms of his probation by failing to maintain contact with his probation officer and by committing new crimes. Accordingly, we find that a reasonable person could conclude these actions showed Houser was not amenable to probation.
We, therefore, conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Houser's probation and imposing the underlying sentence.
Affirmed.