1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 123,455 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,

Appellee,

v.

KRISTAL DAWN GASKILL,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; KEVIN J. O'CONNOR, judge. Opinion filed December 17, 

2021. Affirmed.

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

(h).

Before ATCHESON, P.J., CLINE and HURST, JJ.

PER CURIAM: Kristal Dawn Gaskill appeals the district court's revocation of her 

probation and the imposition of her underlying prison sentence. This court granted 

Gaskill's motion for summary disposition pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2021 

Kan. S. Ct. R. 48). The State responded and agreed that summary disposition was 

appropriate. After reviewing the record on appeal and finding no error, the district court's 

decision to revoke Gaskill's probation and impose her underlying prison sentence is

affirmed.
2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Gaskill is accused of, over the period of a couple years, committing several 

probation violations related to two separate criminal cases. In December 2017, a jury 

convicted Gaskill of two counts of violation of a protection order in case 17-CR-2355. 

The district court subsequently sentenced Gaskill to 12 months of probation, with two 

underlying 12-month jail sentences, to run concurrently. Gaskill appealed, and a panel of

this court affirmed her convictions. State v. Gaskill, No. 118,793, 2019 WL 406098 (Kan. 

App. 2019) (unpublished opinion). 

In April 2018, the State filed a warrant that alleged Gaskill violated her probation 

when she

• committed new crimes;

• possessed or used alcohol and/or drugs;

• admitted she would have failed a drug test;

• failed to make payments on courts costs; and 

• failed to successfully complete a domestic violence offender assessment. 

A few days later, in a separate case—18-CR-869—the State charged Gaskill with 

burglary, theft, and possession of drug paraphernalia for use. At a plea hearing in June 

2018, Gaskill pled no contest to the new charges. In return for her plea, the State agreed 

to recommend the counts run concurrent with one another, but consecutive to her prior 

case where she was convicted of violating the protection order. 

In September 2018, the State filed another warrant which alleged Gaskill violated 

her probation when she committed additional new crimes. At a probation violation 

hearing in January 2019, Gaskill admitted to the allegations in the April 2018 warrant—

except for the allegation she committed new crimes concerning case 18-CR-869—and 
3

denied all the allegations in the September warrant. As a result, the district court revoked 

and reinstated her probation in case 17-CR-2355, extending it for 12 months. 

In May 2019, the district court issued Gaskill an order to appear. After Gaskill 

failed to report to her probation officer, the State filed an additional warrant that alleged 

numerous probation violations. In July 2019, Gaskill admitted to the probation violations 

and served a 48-hour jail sanction for case 17-CR-2355. In October 2019, the State filed

another warrant that alleged numerous probation violations. In January 2020, the State 

filed an additional warrant that alleged Gaskill committed several new crimes, which 

eventually resulted in additional criminal charges. 

Following the evidentiary hearing in June 2020, the district court revoked 

Gaskill's probation in both cases 17-CR-2355 and 18-CR-869 and ordered her to serve 

her underlying sentences. As such, the district court ordered her to serve a 12-month jail 

sentence in 17-CR-2355. However, Gaskill had already served that amount of jail time

while awaiting disposition. The district court's journal entry stated: "Defendant time

served in 17CR2355 on 06/04/20. Excess duplicate incarceration credit after 06/04/20 has 

been applied to the incarceration credit awarded in consecutive case number 18CR869." 

Gaskill appeals the district court's revocation of her probation in case 17-CR-2355. 

In a separate case, she also appeals the district court's revocation of her probation in 18-

CR-869—that appeal is currently pending in this court and is not part of the present case. 

ANALYSIS

Although it appears Gaskill has served her underlying 12-month jail sentence in 

17-CR-2355 and thus her appeal may be moot—the parties only reference the journal 

entry for the conclusion that she has served her sentence. The record does not include 

documentation establishing Gaskill's sentence completion, and because mootness is 
4

prudential this court will consider the merits of her claims but not determine if her claims 

are now moot. See State v. Yazell, 311 Kan. 625, 631, 465 P.3d 1147 (2020) (requiring 

proof of prisoner release); State v. Roat, 311 Kan. 581, 590, 466 P.3d 439 (2020) 

(holding that the mootness doctrine is not jurisdictional). 

On appeal, Gaskill claims the district court abused its discretion by revoking her 

probation and ordering her to serve her underlying prison sentence. This court reviews a 

district court's decision to revoke probation for an abuse of discretion. State v. Coleman, 

311 Kan. 332, 334, 460 P.3d 828 (2020). A district court's probation revocation 

constitutes an abuse of discretion if (1) it is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable; (2) it is 

based on an error of law; or (3) it is based on an error of fact. State v. Ingham, 308 Kan. 

1466, 1469, 430 P.3d 931 (2018). Gaskill bears the burden of showing an abuse of 

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

Following the evidentiary hearing in June 2020, the district court concluded that 

while Gaskill was on probation, she committed the new offense of fleeing or attempting 

to elude law enforcement. As reflected in the journal entry, the district court relied on 

K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3716(c)(7)(C) to revoke Gaskill's probation—the statute allows a 

district court to revoke probation if "the offender commits a new felony or misdemeanor 

while the offender is on probation, assignment to a community correctional services 

program, suspension of sentence or nonprison sanction."

Gaskill does not allege the district court made an error of fact or law, so this court 

must determine whether she has shown that no reasonable person would have taken the 

action adopted by the district court. The district court revoked, but reinstated and 

extended her probation in January 2019, and issued a jail sanction for the allegations in 

the July 2019 hearing. It was not until June 2020, at Gaskill's third probation violation 

hearing for case 17-CR-2355, that the district court revoked probation after finding 

Gaskill committed a new crime and multiple new probation violations—including failure 
5

to report to her intensive supervision officer, failure to attend substance abuse treatment, 

failure to report for intake, and violation of traffic laws. The district court ultimately 

revoked Gaskill's probation for committing the new crime of fleeing or attempting to 

elude law enforcement. The district court gave Gaskill multiple opportunities to remain 

on, and complete, her probation for case 17-CR-2355. She repeatedly failed to comply 

with probation requirements. This court cannot say it was arbitrary or unreasonable for 

the district court to revoke Gaskill's probation under these circumstances. 

Furthermore, the district court also revoked Gaskill's probation in case 18-CR-869 

and ordered her to serve her underlying sentence of 26 months' imprisonment. This court 

has previously found it impractical and unworkable for a defendant to be placed on 

probation in one case while being imprisoned in another. See State v. Benoit, 31 Kan. 

App. 2d 591, 593, 97 P.3d 497 (2002).

Gaskill argues the district court abused its discretion when it revoked her 

probation and imposed her underlying sentence. However, because she committed a new 

crime and had previously committed numerous other probation violations, the district 

court's decision was reasonable. Additionally, revocation of her probation for the 17-CR2355 case while imprisoned for the 18-CR-869 case is also reasonable. The district court 

did not abuse its discretion.

Affirmed.