1 NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No . 122 , 058
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

S TATE OF K ANSAS , Appellee ,

v. N ATHANIEL L EWIS B URNETT J R

. ,

Appellant

. MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appeal from Atchison District Court; R OBERT J. B EDNAR , judge. Opinion filed October 30 , 2020

. Affirmed

. Kelly J. Fuemmeler , of Troy, for appellant.

Sherri L. Becker , county attorney, and Derek Schmidt , attorney general, for appellee.

B efore A T CHESON , P.J., S CHROEDER and W ARNER , JJ.

P ER C URIAM : Nathaniel Burnett appeals his one - year jail sentence for driving with a suspended license , arguing that he should have received probation instead. Because the district court's decision to sentence him to a jail term was consistent with Kansas law and a reasonable exercise of the court's discretion, we affirm.
In August 2018, t he State originally charged Burnett with driving with a suspended license , driving while a habitual violator , and driving without vehicle registration

— all misdemeanors

. When Burnett pleaded guilty to the first offense, the State dismissed the other two charges

.2

T his was not Burnett's first conviction for driving with a suspen ded license , so Kansas law allowed the district court to impose a sentence of up to a one year in the county jail. K.S.A. 20 18 Supp. 8

- 262(a)(1) ; K.S.A. 20 1 8 Supp. 21

- 6602(a)(1)

. At sentencing, Burnett offered several reasons why he believed he should receive probation instead of serving a jail term . H e had a full

- time job; his most recent conviction was six years ago; and he had just paid $4,000 owed from a prior traffic case, making his license eligible for reinstatement soon
. T he court did not find those reasons persuasive , however

. In particular, the court observed that Burnett had an extensive criminal history and had driven a vehicle even though he had not had a driver's license since 2001

. After considering the circumstances of Burnett's case , the court imposed a one

year jail sentence

. But the court found Burnett eligible for work release

— meaning he could leave the jail for work each day and return at night

. S ee K.S.A. 201 8 Supp. 21

- 6604(a)(11)

. T he court also ruled that Burnett could be released for an upcoming Juneteenth celebration. A few weeks later , the district court released him on bond so he could pursue this appeal

. On appeal, Burnett argues that he should have received probation rather than jail time. As we have noted, the sentence the district court imposed was within the permissible statutory range for Burnett's conviction

. See K.S.A. 201 8 Supp. 21

- 6602(a)(1). In such instances, our review of Burnett's sentence is limited to determining whether the co urt abused its discretion

— that is, whether the court based its decision on a legal or factual error or rendered a decision with which no reasonable person would agree. See State v. Collins , 303 Kan. 472, 476

- 77, 362 P.3d 1098 (2015).

Burnett bears the bur den of showing the court abused its discretion. See State v. Wells , 289 Kan. 1219, 122 7, 221 P.3d 561 (2009). He does not allege any legal or factual

error , but rather asserts that the district court's decision was unreasonable, emphasiz ing his recent effo rts to reinstate his license by paying off fees from other cases. T he district3

court considered those efforts, however, observing that it could modify his sentence later if his license was reinstated

. See K.S.A. 201 8 Supp. 21

- 6608(b) (allowing a judge to

" parole any misdemeanant sentenced to confinement in the county jail " ). And by approving Burnett for work release, the court appears to have provided an opportunity for him to remain employed. Given Burnett's extensiv e criminal history, which included several suspended

- license convictions, imposing jail time rather than probation was a reasonable decision. T he district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a jail sentence under these circumstances

.

Affirmed.