1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 123,620

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,

Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL J. STIEB,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; DAVID L. DAHL, judge. Opinion filed December 3, 2021. 

Affirmed.

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

Before ARNOLD-BURGER, C.J., MALONE, J., and BURGESS, S.J.

PER CURIAM: Michael J. Stieb appeals the district court's decision revoking his 

probation and ordering him to serve his original sentence. Stieb moved for summary 

disposition under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 48). The 

State responded asking this court to affirm the district court's ruling. This court granted 

Stieb's motion for summary disposition and affirms the district court's decision.

FACTS

On March 20, 2019, Stieb pled guilty to one count of possession of 

methamphetamine for a crime he committed in June 2018. On August 6, 2019, the district 
2

court sentenced Stieb to 30 months' imprisonment but made border box findings and 

granted probation for 18 months to be supervised by community corrections.

Stieb was unsuccessful on probation. On December 12, 2019, Stieb waived his 

right to an evidentiary hearing and admitted to not reporting to his intensive supervision 

officer (ISO), consuming methamphetamine and cocaine, and possessing drug 

paraphernalia. The district court ordered Stieb to serve a 60-day jail sanction, suspended

upon Stieb's acceptance into inpatient treatment or the residential program.

Stieb continued to violate the conditions of his probation by not reporting to his 

ISO, not attending treatment, and not keeping the ISO informed of his address. He also 

committed the crime of criminal deprivation of property. At a hearing on January 5, 

2021, the district court found that Stieb violated the conditions of his probation by failing 

to contact his ISO and by committing the new crime of criminal deprivation of property. 

The district court also found Stieb's welfare was not served by continued probation 

because he did not engage in treatment, he did not report when required, and he 

committed a new crime. The district court revoked Stieb's probation and ordered him to 

serve his original sentence. Stieb timely appealed the district court's judgment.

ANALYSIS

On appeal, Stieb claims the district court "abused its discretion in revoking his 

probation and ordering him to serve his underlying prison sentence." He acknowledges 

the district court may revoke probation without having previously imposed intermediate 

sanctions where the offender commits a new crime while on probation.

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

revoke the offender's probation and impose the original sentence is discretionary unless 

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

(2018). A court abuses its discretion if its decision is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable

or it is based on an error of law or fact. State v. Gonzalez-Sandoval, 309 Kan. 113, 126-

27, 431 P.3d 850 (2018). The party alleging the abuse of discretion bears the burden of 

proof. State v. Thomas, 307 Kan. 733, 739, 415 P.3d 430 (2018).

K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3716(c) limits the court's discretion in deciding how to 

sanction a felony probation violator. Under the statute, a sentencing court should impose 

a series of intermediate, graduated sanctions before ordering a probation violator to serve 

his or her original sentence, unless certain exceptions apply. Here, the district court could 

bypass the intermediate sanctions because Stieb committed a new crime while on 

probation. K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3716(c)(8)(A). Because the district court could revoke 

Stieb's probation without first imposing intermediate sanctions, the issue is whether the 

district court's actions were otherwise unreasonable.

Stieb asserts the district court abused its discretion when it ordered him to serve 

his original sentence but gives no reason. A court abuses its discretion if no reasonable 

person would have taken the court's position. State v. Gumfory, 281 Kan. 1168, 1170, 135 

P.3d 1191 (2006). At the probation revocation hearing, Stieb stipulated that he committed 

a new crime while on probation. He also violated many other conditions of probation

including failing to report, using drugs, and failing to complete his required treatment 

program. Stieb has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion by revoking 

his probation and ordering him to serve his original sentence.

Affirmed.