Opinion
112,793.
07-24-2015
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Ramon Luiz PLAKIO, Appellant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Ramon Luiz Plakio appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for sentence reduction or probation reinstatement. We granted Plakio'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.
Plakio entered a no-contest plea to one count of domestic battery, a third offense and a felony. The district court sentenced him to 12 months in the county jail with 12 months of probation following the service of a mandatory 90–day jail term. The district court subsequently revoked and reinstated Plakio's probation following his stipulation to multiple violations of his probation terms. Upon Plakio's second stipulation to probation violations, where Plakio admitted he failed to report to his probation officer and failed to complete a mandatory batterer's intervention program, the district court revoked Plakio's probation and ordered him to serve the original jail sentence. Plakio moved for modification of his sentence to time served or, in the alternative, reinstatement of his probation, but the district court denied his requests. Plakio timely appeals.
Plakio argues that the district court abused its discretion in not modifying his sentence to time served or by not reinstating his probation. “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). We also review a district court's decision to refuse to modify a sentence at a probation-revocation hearing under an abuse of discretion standard. See State v. Pennington, No. 112,117, 2015 WL 2343307, at *2 (Kan.App.2015) (unpublished opinion), petition for rev. filed June 5, 2015. “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).
Here, we have no trouble concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion. First, Plakio admitted to the probation violations. Second, although not argued by Plakio, the district court made findings under K.S.A.2013 Supp. 22–3716(c)(9) that an intermediate sanction was not appropriate because efforts had been made, which were unsuccessful, and further efforts would not serve/benefit the interests of Plakio or the public, implying that the safety of the public would be jeopardized. Third, given the nature of Plakio's violations and his history of prior violations, we conclude a reasonable person could agree with the district court's decision not to modify his sentence and to revoke his probation.
Affirmed.