Opinion
No. 107,130.
2013-01-11
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Leandre M. WILLIAMS, Appellant.
Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; Eric A. Commer, Judge.
Submitted for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A.2011 Supp. 21–6820(g) and (h).
Before STANDRIDGE, P.J., GREEN, J., and LARSON, S.J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Leandre M. Williams appeals the district court's revocation of his probation and the order to serve his underlying prison sentence. He moved to proceed by summary disposition in lieu of briefing pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041a (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 60). The State filed a response asking this court to affirm the district court's opinion. We granted William's motion for summary disposition and now affirm the district court.
In August 2010, after pleading guilty to three counts of aggravated assault and three counts of endangering a child, Williams received a 24–month sentence of probation with an underlying prison term of 22 months and 12 months' postrelease supervision. In November 2010, Williams admitted to violating his probation. The court revoked and reinstated his probation with the condition that he obtain a drug and alcohol evaluation and follow the resulting recommendations. In November 2011, Williams stipulated to again violating his probation. The district court revoked Williams' probation and ordered him to serve the underlying prison sentence. On appeal, Williams contends the district court abused its discretion in revoking his probation and remanding him to serve his prison sentence because he suffered from depression and needed to seek treatment.
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). Judicial discretion is abused when judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. If reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion. State v. Gant, 288 Kan. 76, 81–82, 201 P.3d 673 (2009).
This was the second time Williams violated the terms of his probation, after the district court already gave him a second chance. Williams stipulated to violating the terms of his probation on two occasions and thus has demonstrated that he is not amenable to probation. Furthermore, the district court observed that although Williams received a diagnosis of depression in February 2011, he failed to seek treatment in the 7 months prior to his latest probation violation. Under these circumstances, the district court was well within its discretion in revoking Williams' probation and ordering imprisonment. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision.
Affirmed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041a.