Opinion
No. 112691.
07-24-2015
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Janelle SHANNON, Appellant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Janelle Shannon appeals the district court's decision revoking her probation and ordering her to serve her sentence rather than imposing certain statutory intermediate sanctions. We granted Shannon's motion for summary disposition in lieu of briefs pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 66). Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
Factual and Procedural History
Shannon pleaded to and was convicted of possession of oxycodone with intent to sell, deliver, or distribute, a felony drug offense. She was given a 15–month prison term, but granted probation for 18 months and 24 months of postrelease supervision.
Approximately 16 months later, the State filed a motion to revoke probation. Shannon stipulated to failing to pay her costs and fees. The district court revoked and reinstated her probation and extended it for 18 months.
Six months later, a second motion to revoke probation was filed alleging Shannon failed to report, failed to refrain from use of alcohol/drugs, failed to gain employment, and failed to complete alcohol/drug treatment. At the probation revocation hearing, Shannon stipulated to the violations. The district court again revoked and reinstated her probation and extended it for 24 months.
Just 2 months later, in August 2013, the State filed a third motion to revoke Shannon's probation alleging that she failed to report, failed to report correct address, failed to maintain employment, failed to attend alcohol and drug treatment, failed to remain drug free, and failed to complete community service. Shannon stipulated to the allegations made against her. The district court revoked Shannon's probation and ordered her to serve her underlying sentence.
Shannon filed a timely notice of appeal.
Analysis
Shannon argues that the district court abused its discretion when it revoked her probation for the third time and ordered her to serve the underlying sentence without first imposing an intermediate sanction of 60 days in the county jail under K.S.A.2014 Supp. 22–3716(c)(11).
We first note that although Shannon did not raise the application of K.S.A.2014 Supp. 22–3716(c)(11) in the district court, she did generally request a 60–day jail sanction, so we find that she properly preserved this issue for appeal.
The application of K.S.A.2014 Supp. 22–3716(c)(11), the only subsection of K.S.A.2014 Supp. 22–3716 that Shannon argues applies, provides that the court “may impose confinement in a county jail not to exceed 60 days” upon each probation violation. Because this is entirely discretionary with the court, we apply an abuse of discretion standard of review. 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, Shannon failed to comply with numerous conditions of her probation and did so multiple times. The court did not commit an error of law or fact, and the court's decision was not arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. Accordingly, we can find no abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.