Opinion
No. 111,918.
2014-11-14
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Jeffrey REUST, Appellant.
Appeal from Lyon District Court; Jeffrey J. Larson, Judge.
Submitted for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A.2013 Supp. 21–6820(g) and (h).
Before MALONE, C.J., HILL and BRUNS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Jeffrey Reust appeals the district court's decision revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his underlying prison sentence. We granted Reust's motion for summary disposition in lieu of briefs pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 63). The State has filed no response.
Reust pled no contest to one count of possession of methamphetamine and one count of theft. On February 20, 2014, the district court sentenced him to a controlling term of 40 months' imprisonment but granted probation with community corrections for 18 months conditioned upon Reust successfully completing a drug treatment program.
On April 24, 2014, Reust stipulated to violating the conditions of his probation by absconding from treatment and using drugs. Reust asked for reinstatement to probation, arguing that he has a drug problem and needed another chance at receiving treatment. The district court found that Reust was an absconder, revoked his probation, and ordered him to serve his underlying prison sentence. Reust timely appealed.
On appeal, Reust argues that the district court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his underlying prison sentence. Reust acknowledges that the district court has discretion to revoke probation upon a showing that the defendant violated the terms of his or her 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).
Here, Reust admitted to violating the conditions of his probation by absconding from his drug treatment program within a few weeks of being placed in the program. Successful completion of a drug treatment program was the most important condition of Reust's probation for the crime of possession of methamphetamine. The district court's decision to revoke Reust's 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 Reust's probation and ordering him to serve his underlying prison sentence.
Affirmed.