Opinion
111,990.
12-19-2014
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Samuel P. RATLIFF, Appellant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Samuel Paul Ratliff appeals the district court's decision revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his underlying prison sentence. We granted Ratliff's motion for summary disposition in lieu of briefs pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 66). The State has filed no response.
On July 2, 2012, Ratliff pled no contest to one count of burglary of a motor vehicle. On September 10, 2012, the district court sentenced Ratliff to 14 months' imprisonment but granted a dispositional departure to probation with community corrections for 12 months. Ratliff did not appeal his sentence.
The district court subsequently revoked, reinstated, and extended the term of Ratliff's probation. The State later filed a motion to revoke probation and the district court held a hearing on April 1, 2014. After hearing evidence, the district court found that Ratliff had violated probation by failing to (1) abstain from the use of illegal substances, (2) work faithfully at suitable employment, (3) follow recommendations of a drug evaluation, (4) abstain from violating the law, and (5) report to his supervising officer as directed. The district court revoked Ratliffs probation and ordered him to serve his underlying prison sentence. Ratliff timely appealed.
On appeal, Ratliff alleges that the district court erred by imposing the underlying sentence because there were sufficient mitigating factors to outweigh the probation violations. Ratliff notes that his probation violations were related to his association with previous cohorts. He claims that if the district court had placed him on probation out-of-town, he would have been successful in his treatment and on probation.
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 granted a dispositional departure when it placed Ratliff on probation. After Ratliffs first probation violation, the district court gave him another chance and extended the term of probation. Ratliff subsequently violated his probation again on numerous grounds. Based on the record, the district court's decision to revoke Ratliffs 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 Ratliff's probation and ordering him to serve his underlying prison sentence.
Affirmed.