Opinion
112,503 112,504.
04-03-2015
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Belinda IVICSICS, Appellant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Belinda D. Ivicsics appeals the district court's decision revoking her probation and ordering her to serve her underlying prison sentence in two separate cases. We granted Ivicsics' motion for summary disposition in lieu of briefs pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 66). The State filed no response.
In 05CR324G, Ivicsics pled guilty to one count of forgery, and the district court imposed an 18–month probation term with an underlying 10–month prison sentence. In 05CR626G, Ivicsics pled no contest to two counts of forgery, and the district court again imposed an 18–month probation term with an underlying controlling 10–month prison sentence. Ivicsics did not appeal her sentence.
After once revoking, reinstating, and extending Ivicsics' probation in both cases, the State moved to revoke Ivicsics' probation for failing to report to her probation officer. At the hearing on July 24, 2014, Ivicsics stipulated to violating the conditions of her probation by failing to report to her probation officer. The district court found that Ivicsics had absconded, revoked her probation in both cases, and ordered her to serve her underlying prison sentences. Ivicsics timely appealed the probation revocation.
On appeal, Ivicsics contends that the district court erred in revoking her probation and ordering her to serve her underlying prison sentences. Ivicsics acknowledges that the decision to revoke probation rests in the sound discretion of the district court.
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 had previously revoked, reinstated, and extended Ivicsics' probation in both cases. Ivicsics squandered this opportunity by failing to report to her probation officer. In fact, she absconded from probation and was out-of-state without permission for nearly 6 years. At the final probation revocation hearing, the district judge stated, “Well, unfortunately, I just can't believe that Miss Ivicsics is going to be successful on probation. This is one of the worst cases of someone absconding that I have seen, quite frankly.” Based on the record, the district court's decision to revoke Ivicsics' 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 Ivicsics' probation and ordering her to serve her underlying prison sentences.
Affirmed.