1 NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No

. 123,693

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

S TATE OF K ANSAS , Appellee ,

v.

B RITTANY R. A PPLEGATE , Appell ant

.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; D AVID L. D AHL , judge. Opinion filed March 4 , 202 2

. Appeal dismissed

.

Peter Maharry , of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, f or appellant

.

Matt J. Maloney , assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett , district attorney, and Derek Schmidt , attorney general , for appellee

.

B efore M ALONE , P.J., A TCHESON and W ARNER , JJ.

P ER C URIAM : Brittany R. Applegate pled guilty to forgery. Based on her criminal history, the district court sentenced Applegate to a probation term of 18 months. She appeals, arguing she should have received a lesser term of probation. Because Applegate received a presumptive sentence and her sentence resulted from a plea agreement approved of by the sentencing court, we dismiss t his appeal for a lack jurisdiction.2 F ACTS

Applegate pled guilty to forgery, a sever ity level 8 nonperson felony, in exchange
for the State dismissing another count of forgery and agreeing to recommend probation.

Based on the presentence investigation report, t he district court found Applegate to be in sentencing grid box 8

- I, which carried a presumptive probation sentence with an underlying term of 9

- 8

- 7 months ' imprisonment. See K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21

- 6804(a) . The district court sentenced Applegate according to the plea agreement, imposing an underlying sentence of 7 months ' imprisonment with 12 months ' postrelease supervision and granted 18 months ' probation. Applegate timely appealed her sentence

.

After filing her notice of appeal, Applegate moved for summary disposition under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 48). The State responded,

a greeing that summary disposition was proper and noting that an appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review a presumptive sentence. This court denied the unopposed motion for summary disposition without stating any reason and ordered the parties to file briefs.

A NALYSIS

Applegate's only claim on appeal is that the district court erred in sentencing her to
18 months' probation. The district court imposed 1 8 months ' probation under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21

- 6608(c)(4) , which states that " in felony cases sentenced at severity level 8 on the sentencing guidelines grid for nondrug crimes , . . . the court shall order the defendant to serve a period of probation , . . . of up to 18 months in length. " Applegate argues that
because K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21

- 6608(c)(4) authorizes a probation term of " up to 18
months " and gives the court discretion to impose a lesser term, it abused its discretion by

not doing so

. More specifically, she argues that because she never cashed the check and
no restitution was ordered , her case presents less harm than the typical forgery case.3 While the statute cited by Applegate provides the distr ict court with discretion to impose a lesser term of probation, Applegate concedes that she received a presumptive sentence of probation

— a term of probation of up to 18 months. See K.S.A. 2020 Supp.
21

- 6804(a) (stating presumptive sentence of nondrug grid box 8

- I is probation). Applegate also acknowledges that her sentence resulted from a plea agreement, which the sentencing court approved on the record. This court lacks jurisdiction to review either a presumptive sentence or a sentence resulting from a ple a agreement approved by the
district court. See K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21

- 6820(c)(1) (stating this court lacks jurisdiction
to review " [a] ny sentence that is within the presumptive sentence for the crime " ) ; K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21

- 6820(c)(2) (stating this court lacks jurisdiction to review " any sentence resulting from an agreement between the state and the defendant which the sentencing court approves on the record " ); see also State v. Bieker , No. 119,214, 2019 WL 102197 (Kan. App. 2019) (unpublished opinion) (d ismissing appeal on identical argument for lack of jurisdiction based on K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21

- 6820 [c]). Because we lack jurisdiction, we will not address Applegate's argument and must dismiss this appeal

.

Appeal dismissed.