1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 123,734

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,

Appellee,

v.

DWIGHT REID,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Johnson District Court; TIMOTHY P. MCCARTHY, judge. Opinion filed November 5, 

2021. Affirmed.

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

(h).

Before ARNOLD-BURGER, C.J., HILL and POWELL, JJ.

PER CURIAM: Dwight Reid appeals the district court's revocation of his probation 

and the imposition of his underlying prison sentence. We granted Reid's motion for 

summary disposition pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 48). 

The State has not responded. After a review of the record, we affirm.

Pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, Reid pled no contest to one count of 

criminal threat, a severity level 9 person felony, and criminal possession of a firearm by a 

convicted felon, a severity level 8 person felony, for crimes committed in July 2017. 

Reid's presentence investigation report showed his criminal history score to be A. At the 

sentencing hearing on March 29, 2018, the district court sentenced Reid to an aggregate 
2

sentence of 27 months in prison for both counts but granted Reid his request for a 

dispositional departure to probation from that sentence for a period of 18 months.

While on probation, Reid subsequently pled guilty to a new offense of felony 

offender registration violation in case 18 CR 1930. At the probation revocation hearing, 

given Reid's guilty plea in the new case, the district court found Reid to be in violation of 

the terms and conditions of probation, revoked his probation, and ordered Reid to serve 

his underlying prison sentence. The district court cited Reid's commission of a new 

crime, the fact he was originally given a dispositional departure to probation, and his 

extensive criminal history as grounds for revocation.

Reid now appeals, arguing the district court abused its discretion by revoking his

probation and ordering him to serve his underlying prison sentence. Once a probation 

violation has been established, the decision to revoke probation is within the sound 

discretion of the district court. See State v. Coleman, 311 Kan. 332, 334, 460 P.3d 828 

(2020); State v. Skolaut, 286 Kan. 219, 227-28, 182 P.3d 1231 (2008). A district court 

abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on legal or factual errors or if no reasonable 

person would agree with its decision. State v. Ballou, 310 Kan. 591, 615, 448 P.3d 479 

(2019). Reid bears the burden to show an abuse of discretion by the district court. See 

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

In this case, the district court's discretion on whether to revoke probation was

limited by the intermediate sanctions outlined in K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3716. According 

to the law in effect at the time Reid committed his crimes, a district court was required to 

impose graduated intermediate sanctions before revoking an offender's probation. See 

K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3716(c); State v. Huckey, 51 Kan. App. 2d 451, 454, 348 P.3d 997

(2015). However, there are exceptions which permit a district court to revoke a 

defendant's probation without having previously imposed the statutorily required 

intermediate sanctions. One exception allows the district court to revoke probation 
3

without imposing sanctions if "the offender commits a new felony or misdemeanor while 

the offender is on probation." K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3716(c)(8)(A).

Here, it is undisputed that Reid committed a new crime while on probation, 

meaning the district court had the legal authority to revoke Reid's probation. Moreover, 

Reid fails to persuade us why he should have been placed back on probation given his

commission of a new crime while on probation. Under these facts, we have no trouble 

concluding that a reasonable person could agree with the district court's decision to 

revoke Reid's probation and order that he serve his underlying prison sentence.

Affirmed.