1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 122,711

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,

Appellee,

v.

TIMOTHY L. PARKS,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; ERIC WILLIAMS, judge. Opinion filed October 30, 2020.

Affirmed.

Submitted by the parties for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6820(g) and 

(h).

Before ARNOLD-BURGER, C.J., BUSER and WARNER, JJ.

PER CURIAM: Timothy L. Parks appeals the revocation of his probation and 

imposition of his underlying sentence. We granted Parks' motion for summary disposition 

of his appeal under Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2020 Kan. S. Ct. R. 47). Finding no 

abuse of discretion by the district court, we affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Parks pled guilty to an offender registration violation, a severity level 6 person 

felony. The date of his offense was January 1, 2018. His presumptive sentence was 
2

prison, but he was granted a downward dispositional departure to probation for 24 

months with a 34-month underlying prison term. As a condition of probation, he was 

ordered to obey all laws and refrain from consuming illegal drugs. Parks was required to 

register due to 2005 convictions for aggravated criminal sodomy and aggravated indecent 

liberties with a child.

In December 2018, Parks tested positive for methamphetamine/amphetamines and 

admitted he had consumed heroin. He consented to a two-day jail sanction. Eight months 

later, a warrant was issued for Parks alleging that he committed the offense of aggravated 

assault. At a combined plea and probation violation hearing, Parks pled guilty to two 

counts of aggravated assault, a severity level 7 person felony. The district court revoked 

Parks' probation and ordered him to serve his underlying sentence because he committed 

a new crime and his original sentence was the result of a dispositional departure. Parks 

timely appeals.

ANALYSIS

Once a probation violation has been established the district court's decision to 

revoke the offender's probation and impose the underlying sentence is discretionary 

unless otherwise limited by statute. See State v. Dooley, 308 Kan. 641, 647, 423 P.3d 469 

(2018). A judicial action constitutes an abuse of discretion if the action (1) is 

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

alleging the abuse of discretion bears the burden of proof. State v. Thomas, 307 Kan. 733, 

739, 415 P.3d 430 (2018). The judicial action is unreasonable when no reasonable person 

would have taken the same action. State v. Gumfory, 281 Kan. 1168, 1170, 135 P.3d 1191 

(2006).

Kansas statute limits the court's discretion in deciding how to sanction a felony 

probation violator. K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3716(c). The statute provides that a sentencing 
3

court should impose a series of intermediate, graduated sanctions before ordering a 

probation violator to serve his or her underlying sentence, unless certain exceptions 

apply. For example, the district court need not impose any intermediate sanction if the 

offender "commits a new felony or misdemeanor while the offender is on probation" or if 

the probation "was originally granted as the result of a dispositional departure granted by 

the sentencing court." K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3716(c)(8)(A), (c)(9)(B).

Here, the district court's decision to revoke Parks' probation and impose his 

underlying sentence was not based on an error of fact or law. The court had the statutory 

authority to do so because Parks committed a new crime and his probation was originally 

granted as the result of a dispositional departure. The district court's decision was also 

reasonable. Parks was required to register due to two serious sex offenses. He committed 

two more person felonies while on probation for a presumptive prison crime. This was 

not his first probation violation. A reasonable person could agree with the district court's 

decision.

Affirmed.