1 NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 122,996

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

S TATE OF K ANSAS , Appell ee ,

v.

J USTIN M ARKEL F IELDS , Appell ant

.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; S TEPHEN J. T ERNES , judge. Opinion filed August 13 , 20 21

. 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.

Bef ore S CHROEDER , P.J., M ALONE , J., and B URGESS , S.J.

P ER C URIAM : The district court imposed Justin M arkel 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 F ields 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 F ACTS

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 a ppeared in c ourt for four probation revocation hearing s . At the first hearing, the district court ordered Fields to serve a two

day jail sanction

. A t 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 th eft 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 approximate ly 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 regu lar probation violations and was previously ordered to

serve a 2

- day jail sanction , a 2

- week jail sanction, and a 120

- day prison sanction . The3 district court revoked Fields ' probation an d imposed his underlying prison sentence s , finding Fields committed new crimes and admitted to all allegations

.

A NALYSIS

Fields argues the district court abused its discretion when it imposed his underlying prison sentence s 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 sentence s . 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 determi ned 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); s ee 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).

A t the time Fields committed his crimes, K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22

- 3716(c) (1) require d a sentencing court to impose intermediate sanction s 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 syst em and revoke4 probation outright , including when a probat ioner commit s 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 committ ing several new offenses

— including ag gravated 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 distr ict 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 discret ion to revoke Fields ' probation and order him to serve his underlying prison sentence s

.

Affirm ed.