Opinion
No. 109,438.
2013-11-22
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Tieisha PERRY–LOWE, Appelland.
Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; Clark V. Owens II, Judge.
Submitted for summary disposition by the parties pursuant to K.S.A.2012 Supp. 21–6820(g) and (h).
Before GREEN, P.J., PIERRON, J., and KNUDSON, S.J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Tiesha M. Perry–Lowe appeals the revocation of her probation after she pled guilty to one count of sale of cocaine. She claims the district court abused its discretion in revoking her probation. We affirm.
Unless otherwise required by law, probation 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, 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 only abused when an action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 550, 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied132 S.Ct. 1594 (2012). If reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of an action taken by the district court, then it cannot be said that there has been an abuse of discretion. State v. Gumfory, 281 Kan. 1168, 1170, 135 P.3d 1191 (2006).
At her first revocation hearing, the district court found Perry–Lowe failed to: (1) notify her intensive supervision officer (ISO) of contact with law enforcement; (2) make payments; or (3) perform community service work. The court revoked Perry–Lowe's probation but reinstated it under the same terms and conditions as ordered at sentencing.
At her second revocation hearing, the district court found Perry–Lowe had failed to pay court costs and restitution payments as ordered by the court. The court revoked her probation, reinstated her under the same conditions, and extended the length of her probation by 12 months.
At her third revocation hearing, the district court found Perry–Lowe had submitted a urine sample which tested positive for opiates and methadone. The court concluded she had a drug addiction cycle that was out of control. Perry–Lowe admitted the violation, and the court revoked her probation. The court ordered Perry–Lowe to serve her sentence, but modified the sentence from 20 months down to 7 months in order to allow her to get the drug treatment she needed.
Again, probation is a privilege, not a right. It is undisputed that Perry–Lowe has violated the conditions of her probation. The district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Perry–Lowe's sentence and ordering her to serve her sentence. See Gumfory, 281 Kan. at 1170.
Affirmed.