Opinion
No. 108,178.
2012-12-7
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Blake Aaron PEARSON, Appellant.
Appeal from Shawnee District Court; Mark S. Braun, Judge.
Submitted for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A.2011 Supp. 21–6820(g) and (h).
Before MALONE, C.J., BRUNS, J., and LARSON, S.J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Blake Aaron Pearson appeals the district court's decision revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his underlying sentence. Although he stipulated to violating the terms of his probation, Pearson contends that the district court should have reinstated his probation instead of ordering him to serve his underlying sentence. Because we find no abuse of discretion, we affirm the district court's decision.
Pearson pled to one count of domestic battery, third or subsequent offense, and was sentenced to 12 months' probation—after service of 90 days, with an underlying jail sentence of 12 months. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke Pearson's probation. In response, Pearson stipulated that he had violated the conditions of his probation by using marijuana and by failing to report as ordered. Although Pearson requested that the district court place him on supervised probation, his probation was revoked and he was sentenced to serve his underlying sentence.
On appeal, Pearson contends that the district court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his underlying prison sentence. We disagree.
Probation is not a matter of right. Rather, it is an act of grace granted as a privilege by a sentencing judge. See State v. Gary, 282 Kan. 232, 237, 144 P.3d 634 (2006). Once the State has proven a violation of the conditions of probation, revocation is within the sound discretion of the district court. See State v. Graham, 272 Kan. 2, 4, 30 P.3d 310 (2001). Moreover, judicial discretion is abused when judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. If reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the district court, then it cannot be said that the district court abused its discretion. State v. Gant, 288 Kan. 76, 81–82, 201 P.3d 673 (2009).
In the present case, it cannot be said that revoking Pearson's probation for failing to remain drug free and failing to report as ordered was arbitrary or unreasonable. We, therefore, conclude that the district court's decision did not abuse its discretion by revoking Pearson's probation or by requiring him to serve his underlying jail sentence.
Affirmed.