Opinion
111,547.
12-24-2014
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Conor J. TAYLOR, Appellant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Defendant Conor J. Taylor appeals the Miami County District Court's revocation of his probation and imposition of the underlying prison sentence for his conviction of criminal threat. Because the district court's finding that Taylor violated the conditions of his probation is supported by evidence admitted at the revocation hearing and because the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a prison disposition under the circumstances, we affirm.
While a patient at Osawatomie State Hospital (OSH), Taylor locked some staff members in a conference room threatening physical harm if they did not provide him with Methadone. Based on these events, the State charged Taylor with multiple counts of criminal threat and criminal restraint. At defense counsel's request, the district court ordered a mental health evaluation of Taylor at the Elizabeth Layton Mental Health Center in Paola. The evaluation noted several significant behavioral disorders and mental health issues and recommended a more extensive evaluation at Lamed State Hospital (LSH).
Based on this evaluation, the district court ordered Taylor to submit to a competency evaluation at LSH. The evaluation report indicated that Taylor suffered from borderline antisocial personality disorder and dependence on multiple substances. But the report concluded that, with appropriate medications, Taylor was competent to stand trial and to assist in his defense and pointed out that Taylor scored within normal ranges on all competency criteria.
Upon return to Miami County, Taylor negotiated a plea agreement with the State. In exchange for his plea to one count of criminal threat, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges, to recommend an underlying prison term of the mitigated sentence within the applicable gridbox with a dispositional sentencing departure to probation. The State also agreed to waive any fines. At the plea hearing, the district court questioned Taylor about his ability to understand his plea and the rights he would be waiving. Then the court accepted Taylor's guilty plea. On October 10, 2013, the district court followed the plea recommendations and sentenced Taylor to 12 months' probation with a 15–month underlying prison term.
Immediately after sentencing, Taylor was directed to the Miami County probation office to meet with his Intensive Supervision Officer (ISO) Lacey Cuevas. On the way to the meeting, Taylor deposited his medication in a dumpster because he was afraid that it would be stolen from him. Cuevas reviewed the probation conditions with Taylor and then took him back to the dumpster to retrieve his medication before checking him into a motel with instructions to return to the probation office the next day.
While at the motel, Taylor complained of chest pains and was taken to the local hospital. A blood test conducted at the hospital purportedly revealed elevated levels of illegal substances in Taylor's system. When Taylor expressed suicidal thoughts, the hospital transferred him to OSH. Taylor remained at OSH for several weeks. In late October, Taylor threatened to break the arms of an OSH nurse and put her in the hospital if she did not immediately bring him some Splenda for his breakfast. The following day, he fought with another OSH patient. During his hospitalization, Taylor occasionally refused to take his medication.
The State originally sought to revoke Taylor's probation on the basis of his use of illegal substances on October 10. Based upon the incidents at OSH, the State amended its motion to cite Taylor's aggressive and threatening behavior and his unwillingness to take all medications prescribed as grounds for revocation.
Following an evidentiary hearing on December 3, 2013, the district court found that Taylor had violated two conditions of his probation and revoked his probation. The court continued the hearing to permit counsel to consider and research disposition options. On December 13, 2013, the court heard arguments of counsel on disposition before imposing the underlying prison sentence of 15 months.
Taylor has filed a timely notice of appeal from the revocation of his probation and has moved for summary disposition of this appeal without briefing under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 66). The State has not filed a response.
Taylor challenges only the disposition of the probation revocation proceedings. Probation as the result of a dispositional sentencing departure is an act of judicial lenience; it is granted as a privilege to the defendant, not as a right. See State v. Gary, 282 Kan. 232, 237, 144 P.3d 634 (2006). Once the State has established a violation of the conditions of probation by a preponderance of the evidence, which Taylor has not challenged here, the sentencing disposition, i.e., revocation or reinstatement of probation, rests within the broad discretion of the district court. See State v. Skolaut, 286 Kan. 219, 228, 182 P.3d 1231 (2008) (citing K.S.A. 22–3716 [b] ); State v. Graham, 272 Kan. 2, 4, 30 P .3d 310 (2001). Judicial discretion is abused when a district court applies the wrong legal framework; relies on a factual basis that is unsupported by the appellate record; or enters a ruling that no reasonable judge would under comparable circumstances. See State v.. Dobbs, 297 Kan. 1225, 1232, 308 P.3d 1258 (2013) ; Gary, 282 Kan. at 235. On appeal, Taylor bears the burden of demonstrating an abuse of discretion. See State v. Wells, 289 Kan. 1219, 1226, 221 P.3d 561 (2009).
The record shows that Taylor suffers from mental health issues. But the evidence presented to the district court indicated that Taylor's mental health issues were not pervasive and consistent enough to qualify him for placement in a long-term mental health facility. When he is appropriately medicated, Taylor functions normally. Taylor's ISO and his social worker at OSH were unable to devise a suitable placement for closely supervised probation that would address his mental health needs.
As the evidence demonstrated, Taylor continues to pose a threat to those around him if he fails to take his medication, as the episodes at OSH illustrate. Taylor did not provide the district court with an alternative disposition to prison that would address the legitimate public safety concerns that prompted his probation revocation. See Skolaut, 286 Kan. at 228 (noting that a probationer is entitled to show that revocation is not the appropriate disposition). Under these circumstances, we decline to say the district court abused its discretion in revoking Taylor's probation and imposing the underlying prison term.
Affirmed.