1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 122,996

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,

Appellee,

v.

JUSTIN MARKEL FIELDS,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; STEPHEN J. TERNES, judge. Opinion filed August 13, 2021. 

Affirmed.

Jacob Nowak, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.

Julie A. Koon, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett, district attorney and Derek Schmidt, 

attorney general, for appellee.

Before SCHROEDER, P.J., MALONE, J., and BURGESS, S.J.

PER CURIAM: The district court imposed Justin Markel Fields' underlying prison 

sentence upon revoking his probation for the fourth time. Fields now appeals the district 

court's decision, arguing the district court abused its discretion when it revoked his 

probation because it mistakenly found he had previously been ordered to serve a 120-day 

prison sanction. Fields asks us to remand his case for a new disposition hearing. Because 

we find Fields has failed to show the district court abused its discretion in revoking his 

probation and ordering him to serve his underlying prison sentence, we affirm the district 

court's decision.
2

FACTS

In November 2014, Fields robbed a convenience store in Wichita. In October 

2015, Fields pled guilty to robbery and possession of marijuana after a prior conviction as 

part of a plea agreement with the State.

The district court sentenced Fields to 122 months' imprisonment with 36 months'

postrelease supervision for the robbery conviction and 10 months' imprisonment with 12 

months' postrelease supervision for the possession of marijuana conviction. The district 

court ordered the sentences to run concurrent and granted Fields' motion for a 

dispositional departure, sentencing him to 36 months' probation.

After being placed on probation, Fields appeared in court for four probation 

revocation hearings. At the first hearing, the district court ordered Fields to serve a twoday jail sanction. At Fields' second probation revocation hearing, the district court found

the 10 months in jail Fields had served in another case when he committed a new crime 

of theft was a sufficient sanction for that revocation hearing and extended Fields' 

probation for two years under the same conditions. At the third revocation hearing, the 

district court found the State did not meet its burden of proof on most of the claims but

did find Fields had committed technical violations. The district court once again found 

the approximately two weeks Fields was in jail pending the revocation hearing was a 

sufficient sanction.

Finally, at the last probation revocation hearing, the State alleged Fields had 

committed several new crimes, including a person crime of aggravated battery. Fields 

waived his right to an evidentiary hearing and admitted to the allegations. He claimed he 

was fearful of his intensive supervision officer, which caused him to stop reporting. The 

district court noted Fields had regular probation violations and was previously ordered to 

serve a 2-day jail sanction, a 2-week jail sanction, and a 120-day prison sanction. The 
3

district court revoked Fields' probation and imposed his underlying prison sentences,

finding Fields committed new crimes and admitted to all allegations.

ANALYSIS

Fields argues the district court abused its discretion when it imposed his 

underlying prison sentences after revoking his probation. Fields contends the district 

court mistakenly determined he had previously served a 120-day prison sanction and, 

therefore, did not realize it had authority to impose such sanction in lieu of his underlying 

prison sentences. He also asserts the district court mistakenly considered the fact he had 

served an intermediate sanction as a factor for revoking probation. He asks us to remand 

to the district court for a new dispositional hearing.

Once the district court has determined the defendant has violated the terms of 

probation, the decision to revoke probation lies in the discretion of the district court. State 

v. Gumfory, 281 Kan. 1168, 1170, 135 P.3d 1191 (2006); see State v. Coleman, 311 Kan. 

332, 334, 460 P.3d 828 (2020); State v Skolaut, 286 Kan. 219, 227-28, 182 P.3d 1231 

(2008). A judicial action constitutes an abuse of discretion if (1) it is arbitrary, fanciful, or 

unreasonable; (2) it is based on an error of law; or (3) it is based on an error of fact. State 

v. Ingham, 308 Kan. 1466, 1469, 430 P.3d 931 (2018). Fields bears the burden of 

showing such abuse of discretion. See State v. Rojas-Marceleno, 295 Kan. 525, 531, 285 

P.3d 361 (2012).

At the time Fields committed his crimes, K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3716(c)(1) 

required a sentencing court to impose intermediate sanctions on a violating probationer 

before ordering the probationer to serve his or her underlying prison sentence. Even if the 

district court was in error in thinking Fields had previously served a 120-day prison 

sanction, it does not matter. Several exceptions in the statute governing probation 

revocation allow the district court to bypass the graduated sanction system and revoke 
4

probation outright, including when a probationer commits a new crime. K.S.A. 2014 

Supp. 22-3716(c)(8).

Here, the district court found, in addition to multiple other violations, Fields 

admitted to committing several new offenses—including aggravated battery, a person 

felony—all while on probation. The district court, therefore, had the authority to bypass 

the graduated sanction system and revoke Fields' probation outright even if it mistakenly 

thought he had already served a 120-day prison sanction because the district court clearly 

announced at the revocation hearing Fields had committed new crimes as a basis to 

revoke his probation.

Fields has not established the district court's decision to revoke his probation was 

arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. Considering Fields' probation violations and the new 

crimes he committed while on probation, the district court was well within its statutory 

authority and sound discretion to revoke Fields' probation and order him to serve his 

underlying prison sentences.

Affirmed.