1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 124,207

 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,

Appellee,

v.

MARQUES SINGLETARY,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Geary District Court; COURTNEY D. BOEHM, judge. Opinion filed April 29, 2022. 

Affirmed.

Submitted by the parties for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6820(g) and 

(h).

Before GARDNER, P.J., HILL and ISHERWOOD,JJ.

PER CURIAM: Marques Singletary appeals the revocation of his probation. We 

granted Singletary's motion for summary disposition of his appeal under Supreme Court 

Rule 7.041A (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 48). Finding no abuse of discretion by the district 

court, we affirm. 

After Singletary pled no contest, he was convicted of aggravated burglary, a 

severity level 4 person felony. He committed this crime in November 2019. At his 

sentencing hearing, Singletary apologized for his crime and explained that he did not 

have his medication at the time and he would "never do anything like that again." The 
2

district court sentenced Singletary to 56 months in prison but granted a downward 

dispositional departure to 36 months' probation. 

After he was arrested and charged with burglary of a vehicle, the State, in March 

2021, alleged Singletary violated his probation by failing to remain crime free. 

At the probation violation hearing, Singletary stipulated to the violation. He 

argued that he committed the theft when he ran out of his medication, he had given the 

victim his money back, and the victim did not want to press charges. The district court 

revoked Singletary's probation and ordered him to serve his original sentence for several 

reasons: he had committed a new crime; he was a threat to public safety because he had 

committed multiple burglaries; and his original sentence was the result of a dispositional 

departure. 

Singletary timely appeals, claiming that revocation was unreasonable because he 

committed the new crime when he did not have access to his schizophrenia medication. 

He maintains that his psychiatrist was better equipped to address his underlying problem 

than incarceration. And he returned the property he had stolen, and the victim did not 

want him to face charges. 

We review the district court's revocation of an offender's probation for an abuse of 

discretion. State v. Coleman, 311 Kan. 332, 334, 460 P.3d 828 (2020). The district court's 

decision to revoke an offender's probation and order the offender to serve the underlying 

sentence must be exercised within the statutory framework of K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-

3716. A district court abuses its discretion when it does not follow the procedure set out 

in K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3716. See State v. Wilson, 314 Kan. 517, 523-24, 501 P.3d 885 

(2022). 
3

Under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3716(c), the district court may revoke an offender's 

probation after the offender has received at least one two- or three-day jail sanction or if 

the court finds an exception to the intermediate sanctioning scheme. The exceptions 

permit the court to revoke probation without having previously imposed a sanction if the 

court finds and sets forth with particularity the reasons for finding that the safety of 

members of the public would be jeopardized, the probation was originally granted as the 

result of a dispositional departure, or the offender committed a new felony or 

misdemeanor while on probation. K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3716(c)(7)(A)-(C). 

Once a probation violation and an exception to the intermediate sanction 

requirement are established, the district court has discretion to determine whether to 

continue the probation or to revoke and require the offender to serve the underlying 

prison sentence. See State v. Brown, 51 Kan. App. 2d 876, 879-80, 357 P.3d 296 (2015). 

We find no error of law or fact. The district court had the statutory authority to 

revoke Singletary's probation because he committed a new crime and because his original 

sentence was the result of a dispositional departure. Also, a reasonable person could 

agree with the district court's decision to revoke Singletary's probation. The court had 

heard Singletary's excuse before. Singletary's explanation for having committed the 

underlying crime was his lack of access to his medication. He said at that time he would 

never do it again. But he continued to have the same problems with his medication and 

again committed burglary in response. The court's revocation of his probation was a 

reasonable response.

Affirmed.