1 NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No s . 1 2 3, 662 123,663

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

S TATE OF K ANSAS , Appellee ,

v.

L INDSAY D. S LATER , Appellant

.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; D AVID L

. D AHL , judge. Opinion filed December 3, 2021

. Affirmed

.

Submitted by the parties for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21

- 6820(g) and (h).

B efore A TCHESON , P

. J., C LINE and H URST , J J.

P ER C URIAM : Lindsay D. Slater appeals the district court's decision revoking her probation and ordering her to serve her underlying prison sentences in two criminal

cases

— consolidated here for appeal. Slater filed a motion for summary disposition pursuant to Kansas Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 48) and the State responded. This court granted Slater's motion for summary disposition and affirms the district court's decision.2 F ACTS AND P ROCEDURAL B ACKGROUND
On December 17, 2019, Slater pled guilty to one count of unlawful possession of methamphetamine for a crime committed in May 2018 (the d rug o ffense). On March 17, 2020, the district court sentenced Slater to an underlying 28 months' imprisonment but instea d granted her 18 months' probation. The next day, Slater pled guilty to one count of interference with a law enforcement officer related to actions committed in November 2019 (the 2019 o ffense)

.

The State alleged Slater violated her probation by committing new crimes while
on pr obation for the d rug o ffense, but before she was sentenc ed for the 2019 o ffense. On May 29, 2020, the district court held a probation violation hearing related to the d rug

o ffense probation in conjunction with the sentencing hearing for the 2019 o ffense

. A t the probation violation hearing, t he district court reviewed the State 's allegations of Slater's additional crimes : pedestrian under the influence, interference with a law enforcement officer, and use or possession with intent to use drug paraphernalia. The district court ordered Slater to serve a 48

- hour jail sanction for these violations. The court then proceeded to sentenc e Slater for the 2019 o ffense , giving her 12 months of probation with an underlying sentence of 11 months' imprisonment. Slater's sentence for the 2019

o ffense was to run consecutive to the d rug o ffense sentence.

After she served the 48

- hour sanction, and while on probation for both the d rug

o ffe nse and 2019 o ffense, the State alleged Slater again violated the terms of her probation. In September 2020, the district court held another probation violation hearing where the State alleged that in July 2020 Slater failed to report to her probation offi ce r and committed a new crime of interference with a law enforcement officer. The district court sanctioned Slater to 60 days' jail, with credit for time served, and authorized work release

.3 On October 26, 2020, Slater's mother called 911 and requested a c risis i ntervention

t eam (CIT) police officer because she believed something was wrong with Slater

. When officers arrived, Slater was not cooperative. She refused to talk much and simply stared at the officers when asked questions. The o fficers offered to take her to a mental health facility for services or arrest her for outstanding warrants. Slater chose to be arrested , but she resisted and was charged with battery of a law enforcement officer for biting the officer and resisting arrest

.

The district c ourt held a probation revocation hearing on January 8, 2021 , where police Sergeant Keith Goodall testified about the October 26 events as described above. Slater also testified about the events from her perspective and claimed the officers arrived with violence in their eyes. She said they grabbed her, pinned her, and bashed her head. Slater testified that she did not bite the officer or resist arrest

.

At the con clusion of the testimony, the district court revoked Slater's probation for both the d rug o ffense and 2019 o ffense. In support of its ruling, the district court considered the repeated probation violations, the commission of new crime s , public safety, and Slater's welfare. Although the district court ordered Slater to serve her original
sentences , it modified the sentences to run concurrently. Slater appealed and this court consolidated the two cases on appeal.

D ISCUSSION
Slater argues that the district court erred in revoking her probation and imposing her underlying prison sentences because sanctions were a viable alternative. Once the State establishes the defendant violated his or her probation, the district court has discretion, unless prohibited by statute, to impose the original sentence. See State v. Dooley , 308 Kan. 641, 647, 423 P.3d 469 (2018) . A court abuses its discretion if its4 decision to revoke probation is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable , or based on an error of law or fact. State v. Gonzalez

- Sandoval , 309 Kan. 113, 126

- 27, 431 P.3d 850 (2018)

. The party alleging the abuse of discretion bears the burden of proof. State v. Thomas , 307 Kan. 733, 739, 415 P.3d 430 (2018)

.

This appeal consolidates two criminal cases, one committed in 2018 and one in 2019, so two different statutes govern the district court's imposition of probati on violation sanctions. See K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22

- 3716(c); K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22

- 3716(c). There is no material difference in the statutes

— the only difference is in numeration. Except under certain circumstances present here, a sentencing court must impose a series of intermediate, graduated sanctions before ordering a probation violator to serve his or her original sentence. Here, the district court was permitted to bypass the intermediate sanctions because Slater committed new crime s while on probation. See K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22

- 3716(c)(8)(A) ; K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22

- 3716(c)(7)(C) . The district court could properly revoke Slater's prob ation without first imposing intermediate sanctions because the court found she committed new crime s . Accordingly, t he only remaining issue is whether the district court's actions were otherwise unreasonable.

Slater argues the district court abused its di scretion when it revoked her probation because it could have given her another chance on probation. A court abuses its discretion if no reasonable person would have taken the court's position

. State v. Gumfory , 281 Kan. 1168, 1170, 135 P.3d 1191 (2006)

. However, Slater did not dispute that she committed new c rimes while on probation. Additionally, t he court had already given Slater two chances through sanctions for previous probation violations. It cannot be said that, given Slater's repeated violations and commission of new crimes, no reasonable person would take the same action as the district court

. F or these reasons, Slater has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion by revoking her probation and ordering her to serve her original sentences.5 Affirmed.