1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 124,099

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,

Appellee,

v.

ABEL M. SANTOS,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; TYLER J. ROUSH, judge. Opinion filed March 18, 2022. 

Affirmed. 

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

(h).

Before HILL, P.J., POWELL and CLINE, JJ.

PER CURIAM: Abel M. Santos appeals his sentence for misdemeanor escape from 

custody. We granted Santos' unopposed motion for summary disposition under Kansas 

Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 48). After a review of the record, we 

find the district court did not abuse its discretion and affirm.

In June 2018, Santos pleaded guilty to five counts of burglary and one count of 

attempted theft under a plea agreement. The district court placed Santos on probation for 

24 months with an underlying prison sentence of 45 months.
2

In January 2019, the State charged Santos with burglary, criminal damage to 

property, and theft. These offenses were alleged to have occurred in 2017 but charging 

was delayed because of a delay in DNA testing. The State also filed a probation violation 

warrant, alleging that Santos had violated several terms of his probation.

Santos entered another plea agreement in September 2019, under which he 

pleaded guilty to the burglary charge. The remaining charges were dismissed. He waived 

his right to an evidentiary hearing and admitted the probation violations.

The district court granted Santos' motion for departure and sentenced him to 24 

months' probation with an underlying prison sentence of 21 months for the new burglary 

conviction. As for the probation violations, it imposed a three-day jail sanction and 

extended Santos' probation so that his term of probation for all cases would end at the 

same time. 

Then, in January 2020, the State charged Santos with felony aggravated escape 

from custody and filed a probation violation warrant for Santos' commission of a new 

crime while on probation.

Santos admitted to violating his probation by committing a new crime and pleaded 

guilty to an amended charge of escape from custody, a class A misdemeanor, under a 

plea agreement with the State. In line with this agreement, both Santos and the State 

recommended the district court sentence Santos to 12 months in prison, revoke his 

probation, impose the underlying sentences in his previous convictions, and modify his 

sentences to be served concurrently. The district court followed this joint 

recommendation when it sentenced Santos.
3

On appeal, Santos argues the district court abused its discretion in imposing a 

prison sentence instead of placing him on probation for his new conviction. Santos does 

not explain how he believes the district court abused its discretion.

Because K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6820(c) applies to only felony sentences, we have

jurisdiction to review Santos' misdemeanor sentence. See State v. Huff, 277 Kan. 195, 

197-98, 83 P.3d 206 (2004) (presumptive felony sentence statute inapplicable to 

misdemeanor sentences).

A criminal sentence within statutory limits will not be disturbed on appeal absent a 

showing of abuse of discretion or vindictiveness on the part of the sentencing court. State 

v. Brown, 309 Kan. 369, 375, 435 P.3d 546 (2019). A district court abuses its discretion 

when: (1) no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the judge, (2) a ruling 

stems from an error of law, or (3) substantial competent evidence does not support a 

finding of fact on which the exercise of discretion is based. The burden of proving error 

is on the party alleging the abuse. State v. McLinn, 307 Kan. 307, 347-48, 409 P.3d 1 

(2018).

Santos' 12-month sentence for misdemeanor escape from custody is within the 

statutory limits. See K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6602(a)(1) (setting maximum sentence for 

class A misdemeanors at one year). Santos also recommended the district court impose a 

12-month prison sentence in his plea agreement and did not move for a dispositional 

departure.

Because the district court did not abuse its discretion and imposed a sentence 

within the statutory limits for the underlying crime, we affirm Santos' sentence.

Affirmed.